CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 juillet 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sA5881AC3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sB96219A0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:8.5pt; text-align:justify } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF5DC77FC { margin-left:2.81pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s2571CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s2BEE0163 { font-family:Arial; color:#00568d } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7BC87A4D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE9B63EAF { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sD37C64FF { width:117.42%; border-collapse:collapse } .sEBAC263B { height:28.1pt } .sB404EC87 { width:6.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sBA29A836 { width:39.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9E0B9211 { width:13.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D9D5C94 { width:24.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1EB68EF3 { width:15.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE4C84500 { height:37.5pt } .s4FF73136 { width:6.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7049ADB7 { width:39.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7A25C493 { width:13.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B932AE { width:24.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s71CBB212 { width:15.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5B4EE78A { height:18.7pt } .s41375D7A { height:27.85pt }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF D.H. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA (Application no. 44033/17)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Respondent State’s failure to present sufficient evidence demonstrating conclusively that the police authorities provided detained sex workers with food, water and access to a toilet • No breach in relation to complaint of alleged inadequate medical treatment Art 8 • Private life • Domestic courts’ failure to protect detained sex workers’ right to respect for their private life against the infringement of that right by the publication of their photographs, taken while in custody, on the Ministry of Interior’s website • Applicants’ complaint dismissed by the Court of Appeal without sufficient reasoning • No prima facie evidence of any responsibility on the part of the police authorities for the taking and the publication of their photographs in certain media outlets   STRASBOURG 18 July 2023   FINAL   18/10/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of D.H. and Others v. North Macedonia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Egidijus Kūris,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   44033/17) against the Republic of North Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ms D.H. (“the first applicant”), Ms   S.A. (“the second applicant”), Ms I.J. (“the third applicant”) and Ms K.N. (“the fourth applicant”; together “the applicants”), all Macedonians / citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia, on 17   June   2017; the decision to give notice to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 27 June 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants, all sex workers, while in police custody, in particular the conditions of their detention, the taking and publishing photographs of them as well as lack of reasons in the domestic courts’ judgments. The applicants complained of a violation of their rights under Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 2.     The applicants were born between 1955 and 1986 and live in Skopje. They were represented before the Court by Ms N. Boshkova, a lawyer practising in Skopje. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5 .     On the evening of 20 November 2008 at about 7 p.m., the applicants were arrested by the police as part of a group of thirty-two people and taken to a police station. 6 .     On 21 November 2008 an order was issued by an investigating judge under Article 205 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 22 below), pursuant to which the applicants were taken to the State University Clinic in Skopje (“the clinic”) to have blood samples taken to detect sexually transmittable diseases. The second applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis C. 7 .     On 21 November 2008, according to the police register, the first and second applicants were released at about 1.30 p.m. and the third and fourth applicants at about 2.30 p.m.   Proceedings for a review of the legality of the applicants’ deprivation of liberty 8 .     The applicants submitted separate requests for a review of the legality of their deprivation of liberty ( барање за испитување на законитоста на лишувањето од слобода ). They claimed that they had been detained unjustifiably; that they had not been informed of the reasons of their arrest; that no official record of the seized objects had been provided to them; that no food, water and use of toilet had been provided; that no medical care had been provided and that the taking of their blood samples had been carried out without a court order. Soon after, the fourth applicant withdrew her request. In the proceedings before the investigating judge, the first applicant stated, inter alia : “... I did not ask for medical assistance. They neither gave us food nor allowed us to use the toilet. One of the girls urinated on herself. ... Nobody informed me of the order that I was to undergo a medical examination. ... I saw twenty to thirty photographers upon our arrival at the clinic. ... One official told me that there was an order for a medical examination. I voluntarily raised my hand so that they could take a blood sample. ... We stayed at the police station until 3 p.m. ...” 9 .     The second applicant stated, inter alia : “... As we returned to the police station, I asked for a doctor, given that I am a drug addict. Upon his arrival, I refused his treatment – I was nervous. An official said that we were drug addicts, stinky whores who had been making jokes with them. The police gave us nothing, neither water nor food. There were many photographers at the State University Clinic. The police chased them away, but they photographed us. The next morning they took us to the State clinic without telling us why. ... One doctor said that the persons who were willing to give blood for analysis could do so. I voluntarily gave blood for analysis. Later on, they took us back to the police station, gave us back our personal items and let us go home. I went home at around 12 noon. ...” 10 .     The third applicant stated, inter alia : “I did not ask for a doctor at the police station. I asked for medication, telling them that I was taking medication, but nobody provided any to me. ... Nobody informed us that an investigating judge had issued an order for the taking of blood samples. .. The doctors told us why it was necessary to take blood samples. I told them about my medical condition and they provided me with medication for high blood pressure. ... After we returned from the clinic to the police station, they kept us in custody and we were not given bread or water and we were not allowed to use the toilet. ... I was at the police station for two days, starting from 7 p.m. until 5 p.m. the next day. ...” 11 .     In the same proceedings, Mr D.N. (a police inspector) stated that only one person in police custody had asked for medical help at 4.20 a.m. and an ambulance had been called by the police officers. He further stated that all the persons in police custody had been allowed to use the toilet facilities and had been provided with food and drink. Mr Zh.B. (a legal representative of one of the arrested persons) stated that the police officers had acted in a professional manner and that he had left the police station at about 1 a.m. 12 .     On 2 February 2009 the first, the second and the third applicants’ requests were dismissed on the merits by an investigating judge of the Skopje Criminal Court of First Instance, who found that none of their rights had been violated during their detention. In reaching the above conclusion, the investigative judge took into consideration the fact that the police officers wore uniforms and were perceived by the applicants as law-enforcement officials; the statement given by Mr Zh.B (see preceding paragraph); that they were given the official record of the search-and-seizure operation; that they were informed of their right to a lawyer; that they had been informed of the order for medical examination and that any footages taken in the police station were in protection of their identity and for internal purposes of the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”). It concluded that the applicants’   deprivation of liberty   had been lawful. That decision was subsequently upheld by a three-judge panel of the same court. Decision of the Data Protection Agency 13.     On 8 June 2009 the Data Protection Agency (“the Agency”) granted a request for the protection of personal data in respect of thirteen persons, including the first applicant. The Agency stated that four media outlets had published photographs and videos of the first applicant and two other persons, violating their right to protection of their personal data. It also found that it had not been established that the information in the media had been leaked by the police authorities and that there had been no evidence that the Ministry had published the personal data on its website. The Agency dismissed the requests in respect of the other applicants as they had not been identifiable in the photographs published by the media outlets. That decision became final on 18 April 2015. Proceedings before the domestic courts 14 .     On 17 June 2009 fourteen persons, including the applicants, lodged a civil claim against the Ministry, seeking compensation for having been ill ‑ treated by the police and having their right to privacy violated. They described their allegations as outlined in paragraphs 8-10, relying on, inter alia , Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention. They further asserted that while they had been in custody, photographs had been taken of them and published on the website of the Ministry; the photographs had subsequently been reproduced in national media outlets without their faces being concealed. As regards their medical examination, they submitted that they had been forced to undergo the procedure by the police. They also asserted that the media had been alerted to their examination and, as a consequence, they had been photographed at the entrance to the clinic. Photographs and news about the taking of their blood samples appeared in newspapers’ articles with titles such as “Prostitutes forced by truncheon to undergo a check-up” ( Курвите со пендрек на преглед ). 15 .     On 5 and 11 May and 27 June 2011 the Skopje Civil Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) held public hearings, during which the third and fourth applicants stated that on 21 November 2008 they had been released from police custody at 2 p.m. or 3 p.m. and at 4.30 p.m. respectively. The applicants reiterated that while detained they were not provided with any food, water or access to toilet facilities. The second, third and fourth applicants, who were allegedly suffering from heart problems and drug addiction withdrawal symptoms, submitted that they had not been provided with any medical assistance. The second applicant stated that she had refused to be examined by a doctor. The third applicant stated that “a woman had urinated on herself”. She acknowledged that she had told the police officers that she was taking certain medication. The fourth applicant stated that she had been vomiting while in police custody and had not been informed of the purpose of the taking of blood samples. 16.     Two other persons, Ms A.D. and Ms E.D., who had also been arrested on the evening of 20 November 2008, stated that some women had suffered withdrawal symptoms and had urinated on themselves because they had not been allowed to use the toilet facilities and had not been given water. 17 .     After a remittal, on 28 May 2015 the trial court granted the applicants’ claims and awarded them compensation between 90,000 and 130,000 Macedonian denars (equivalent to approximately 1,500 and 2,150 euros) each. The court, referring to Article 8 of the Convention, found that the police had failed in their duty to protect the privacy of the applicants by not securing the premises and removing the journalists on the day when they had been taken to the clinic. It further held that a violation of the applicants’ private life as protected under Article 8 had occurred on account of photographs of the applicants being taken at the police station and subsequently published on the Ministry’s website. This had, in turn, drawn undue attention to the applicants’ arrest at a time when their guilt had not yet been decided and had alerted the media outlets to the time and place of the blood tests the following day. The court further referred to Article 3 of the Convention, finding that the applicants had not been provided with food, water or access to toilet facilities for twenty hours while in police custody and that they had been forced to undergo blood tests the following day. In reaching the above findings, the court relied on the applicants’ statements, statements of the police officers who had been on duty on the relevant day, excerpts from the media and other evidence. 18 .     The trial court also referred to an expert opinion of 30 May 2015 in which Dr L.I., a psychiatrist, interviewed the applicants and concluded, inter alia , that while in police custody, they had suffered from hunger and thirst and had been unable to satisfy their physiological needs and to maintain personal hygiene. The second applicant stated that “nobody called for a doctor” while she had been suffering from withdrawal symptoms. Dr L.I., relying on the available medical documentation, stated that the third applicant, who had partial paralysis and suffered from high blood pressure, was in a good state of health in general. The fourth applicant had undergone physical and psychological suffering, as her addiction to psychotropic substances had been left untreated. 19 .     On 28 November 2016, on an appeal lodged by the Ministry and the applicants, the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), after holding a public hearing, overturned the judgment and dismissed the applicants’ claim. Referring, inter alia , to a report from the Data Protection Agency and a report from the Ministry’s Department for Control and Professional Standards, neither of which had been forwarded to the applicants, the court held that no breach of the applicants’ rights had been caused by the respondents’ actions (referring to the decisions of 2   February 2009; see paragraph 12 above). This was also confirmed in a statement by Mr Zh.B, legal representative of one of the arrested persons. In particular, the Court of Appeal found that the length of their detention had been lawful; there were no shortcomings in the search- and seizure operation; that the applicants’ statements had been contradictory and based on no evidence; and that the applicants had allowed their blood samples to be taken. Lastly, the court held that the police authorities had had no responsibility with regard to exposing the applicants to the press during their visit to the clinic as they were photographed by journalists. The judgment was served on the applicants’ representative on 20 December 2016. 20.     Subsequently, the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) with the Supreme Court which the latter, with a judgment of 15   January 2019, rejected as the value of each individual claim did not reach the required statutory threshold (the ratione valoris criterion). Other relevant information 21.     On 17 November 2010 the second applicant was convicted of spreading infectious diseases ( пренесување заразни болести ) and was given a suspended prison sentence. No charges were brought against the other applicants. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW Criminal jurisdiction 22 .     Pursuant to Article 205 of the Criminal Code, a person who has a contagious disease is to be held accountable in the event of the transmission of the disease through sexual intercourse. 23 .     Section 144(1) and (2) of the Criminal Proceedings Act (“the Act”) provides that the Ministry is to take the necessary measures to ensure that the perpetrator of a criminal offence is discovered. 24 .     Section 273 of the Act provides that the taking of a blood sample or similar physical interventions may be ordered to determine facts which are relevant in a criminal case, provided that the examination is not to the detriment of a person’s health. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 25.     The applicants complained that they had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during their lengthy detention in police custody without access to water, food or toilet facilities. Moreover, they had not been provided with medical care despite their serious medical conditions. They 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 The parties’ submissions 26 .     The Government argued that the complaint had been lodged more than six months following the dismissal of the applicants’ requests for legality review of their detention in police custody (see paragraph 12 above). As for the fourth applicant, they submitted that she had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, given that she had withdrawn her request (see paragraph 8 above). The subsequent civil action for damages had not been an effective legal remedy. In any event, the applicants had failed to initiate criminal prosecution proceedings against the police officers. 27.     The applicants contested the Government’s arguments. In particular, they submitted that they had exhausted all available remedies and that the respondent State had been obliged to institute criminal proceedings of its own motion in respect of their grievances under this head. The Court’s assessment 28.     The general principles regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies are set out in Vučković and Others v. Serbia ((preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014) and Alekseyev and Others v. Russia (nos.   14988/09   and 50 others,   § 12, 27 November 2018). In addition, the only remedies which Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires to be used are those which relate to the breaches alleged and which are, at the same time, available and sufficient (see   Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no.   25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999 ‑ III). Thus, the time ‑ limit only starts to run from the final decision resulting from the exhaustion of remedies which are adequate and effective to provide redress in respect of the matter complained of (see Hambardzumyan v. Armenia , no. 43478/11, § 41, 5 December 2019). 29.     The Court notes at the outset that the applicants raised the issues of lack of access to food, water, a toilet and a medical care in the legality review proceedings before the investigating judge and later in their civil action for damages before the trial court (see paragraphs 8 and 14 above). The remedy which the applicants pursued in the former proceedings could have given rise to a declaration that their   detention overnight from 20 to 21 November 2008 was unlawful (compare, in the context of Article 5, Lazoroski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 4922/04, § 38, 8 October 2009). However, it observes that those proceedings did not provide an effective remedy in so far as the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention were concerned. In particular, the investigating judge in the present case did not examine questions relating to the substance of the applicants’ Convention complaints that they had suffered inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 12 above); still less was it open to him to grant appropriate relief in connection with those complaints. 30 .     The Court notes that the civil action which the applicants pursued, arguing, inter alia , that there had been a violation of Articles 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 14 above), was examined twice upon remittal first by the trial court, which assessed the evidence, declared it admissible and ruled in their favour on the merits (see paragraph 17 above), and then by the Court of Appeal, which examined it in substance and dismissed it (see paragraph 19 above). The latter court made a passing reference to the decisions in the legality review proceedings but in the present context this was not decisive (see paragraph 19 above). There can therefore be no doubt that all the applicants raised their arguments relying on Article 3 of the Convention before the competent judicial authorities in the respondent State. Moreover, none of the arguments advanced by the Government suggest that criminal charges against the police officers would have added anything to the possibilities offered by the civil action for damages pursued by the applicants. In the present case no complaint was made as to unlawful use of force by the police officers. The Court therefore does not consider that criminal proceedings against them would have been an appropriate remedy for the applicants’ grievances (see Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 76, 5   July 2016, and Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 135, 19 December 2017). In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that   in the particular circumstances   of the case   the applicants   should be considered as having exhausted   domestic remedies   for the purposes of Article   35 §   1 of the Convention; the Government’s plea of inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed. Accordingly, the starting-point of the six-month time-limit should be set at the date on which the applicants were served with the decision of the Court of Appeal of 28 November 2016 (see paragraph 19 in fine above). The Court therefore dismisses also the Government’s objection of non-compliance with the six ‑ month time-limit. 31 .     In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Government’s objections as to the admissibility of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill ‑ founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions 32 .     The applicants submitted that the police records (see paragraph 7 above) did not reflect the real situation and alleged that they had spent long hours in police custody. They reiterated that there had been no access to water or food and that they had not been allowed to use the toilet at the police station. The second and fourth applicants submitted that, although they had informed the police authorities that they required treatment for methadone therapy addiction, the police authorities had failed to take the necessary steps to have them examined by a doctor. The third applicant argued that she had suffered from high blood pressure and that the State authorities had failed to provide her with adequate treatment. 33 .     The Government contended that, in contrast to the situation in Soare and Others v. Romania (no. 24329/02, 22 February 2011), the applicants had been suspects and not witnesses in the case, and the police officers had informed them of their status immediately after they had arrived at the police station. According to the documents produced by the domestic authorities, including documents signed by the applicants themselves, the applicants had been placed in police custody for an amount of time that was reasonable, in accordance with domestic law. The Government argued that the investigation in respect of the applicants had been complex and had been part of a set of proceedings which had involved thirty-two other individuals and had required a large number of procedural steps which had been carried out within a short period of time. The applicants had had access to a toilet and had not been prevented from moving around, a fact that could be observed from the statements given by Mr D.N. and Mr Zh.B. (see paragraph 11 above). The applicants had failed to inform the police officers about their illnesses or the fact that they needed medical treatment. The second applicant, who had informed the police officers about her illness, had refused to undergo a medical check-up when the doctor arrived. The applicants had not provided any medical documents substantiating their allegations.   The Court’s assessment (a)    General principles 34.     The relevant general principles regarding the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment are set out in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015) and Feilazoo v. Malta (no. 6865/19, §   80, 11   March   2021) and regarding the conditions of detention in the context of Article 3 in Muršić v. Croatia ([GC], no. 7334/13, § 99, 20 October 2016 and the cases cited therein). The Court reiterates that, as is apparent from its well-established case-law, in cases of alleged violations of Article 3 of the Convention, it must, in its assessment of the evidence, apply a particularly thorough scrutiny. Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court’s task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for these courts to assess the evidence before them. Even though in cases involving Article 3 the Court is prepared to be more critical of the conclusions of the domestic courts (see El ‑ Masri v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §   155, ECHR 2012), in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Cestaro v. Italy , no. 6884/11, § 164, 7 April 2015). 35.     The Court further reiterates that an unsubstantiated allegation that medical care has been non-existent, delayed or otherwise unsatisfactory is normally insufficient to disclose an issue under Article 3 of the Convention. A credible complaint should normally include, among other things, sufficient reference to the medical condition in question; medical treatment that was sought, provided, or refused; and some evidence   –   such as expert reports   –   which is capable of disclosing serious failings in the applicant’s medical care (see, for example, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia , no.   57541/09 , §   80, 24 January 2012, and Yevgeniy Bogdanov v. Russia , no.   22405/04 , § 93, 26 February 2015). (b)    Application of the above principles to the present case (i)       Time frame and alleged lack of access to food, water and a toilet at the police station 36 .     In the present case the Court notes that the factual circumstances of the case are disputed by the parties (see paragraphs 32 and 33 above). The applicants alleged that the records signed by them while in police custody had been inaccurate in terms of the length of their detention and the actual events that had occurred on 20 and 21 November 2008 (see paragraph 32 above). The Court notes that the Skopje Criminal Court of First Instance in its decision of 2 February 2009 (see paragraph 12 above), to which the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the civil proceedings refers (see paragraph 19 above), found no irregularities regarding the length of the first, second and third applicants’ detention in police custody. Those findings of the domestic courts were supported by evidence obtained in the course of the proceedings before the investigating judge and the trial court, such as the applicants’ testimonies (see paragraphs 8-10 and 15 above) and the police records (see paragraphs 5 and 7 above). In their statements before the investigating judge, the first and second applicants confirmed that they had been released at 3 p.m. and 12 noon respectively (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above), whereas the police records submitted by the Government noted that they had been released at 1.30 p.m. – see paragraph 7 above). As regards the third applicant, she argued before the investigating judge that she had been released at 5 p.m. (see paragraph 10 above) and the police records indicated 2.30 p.m. as the time of her release (see paragraph 7   above). However, in her testimony before the trial court she stated that her release had taken place at 2 p.m. or 3 p.m. (see paragraph 15 above). As regards the fourth applicant, contrary to the records in the police register submitted by the Government, according to which she was released from police custody on 21 November 2008 at 2.30 p.m. (see paragraph 7 above), the applicant argued on 11 May 2011 before the trial court that she had been released from police custody at 4.30 p.m. (see paragraph 15 above). The Court is not persuaded by this argument. It considers that the fact that almost two and a half years had elapsed since the fourth applicant’s release prevents it from drawing inferences from her statement of 11 May 2011 before the trial court. It also observes that she withdrew her request of 5   December 2008 for a review of the legality of her deprivation of liberty in connection with her arrest (see paragraph 8 above). The Court therefore considers that the applicants have not provided a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the time frame of the events in question. In such circumstances, it considers it reasonable to believe that the applicants remained in police custody for about twenty hours, starting at 7   p.m. on 20   November 2008 (see paragraph 5 above). 37 .     As regards the applicants’ allegations that they were not provided with water, food and access to a toilet, the Court notes that the Court of Appeal’s judgment, contrary to the findings of the first-instance court (see paragraphs 17 and 19 above), merely states that their statements had been contradictory but provides no explanation as to what those contradictions were as to the substance of the applicants’ complaint. It appears that the Court of Appeal largely relied on the conclusions reached in the proceedings before the investigating judge who did not examine the applicants’ grievances as to the lack of access to food, water and a toilet (see paragraph 12 above). In this context, the Court observes that the applicants’ description as to the circumstances regarding their alleged inhuman and degrading treatment in that they were not provided with water, food and access to a toilet was very detailed, specific and consistent in the proceedings before both the investigating judge and the civil courts (see paragraphs 8-10 and 15 above). The Court observes further that all of them confirmed that they had not been given access to food, water or a toilet. The first and third applicants further stated that “a woman had urinated on herself”. They stated that the police officers had called them “whores” and that the event had instilled in them feelings of inferiority and humiliation. All of this was confirmed by two other direct protagonists, who were present at the scene as detainees together with the applicants (see paragraph 16 above). The Court notes the statements of Mr D.N. and Mr Zh.B., referred to by the Court of Appeal (see paragraph 19 above) and later by the Government before the Court (see paragraph 33 above), but it considers them insufficient to outweigh the facts described by the applicants. In this connection it is noteworthy that Mr Zh.B. left the police station at around 1   a.m., that is only a few hours after the start of the applicants’ detention, and he could not have witnessed the ensuing events ‑ a fact that the Court of Appeal disregarded (see paragraph 19 above). In addition, there are other aspects of the case which further strengthen the credibility of the applicants’ depiction of events. In this connection, it had to be assumed that the applicants, that belonged to a   vulnerable   group recognised in various international instruments ( see S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no.   60561/14, §§ 107-209, 25 June 2020), would not have been able to gather evidence in respect of the above events while being held in the police station under full control of the police officers without the presence of any other persons. In the light of the above circumstances, the Court also takes note of the expert opinion issued in 2015 concerning the applicants’ medical condition, which, taken together with the above circumstances, attests to the fact that the applicants had suffered from hunger and thirst and had been unable to satisfy their physiological needs or to maintain personal hygiene (see paragraph 18 above). Accordingly, bearing in mind that the alleged events in issue lied wholly within the exclusive knowledge and control of the authorities and that the burden of proof was on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation, the Court notes that the Government have failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating conclusively that the police authorities took account of the applicants’ basic needs, such as by providing them with food, water and access to a toilet (see, mutatis mutandis , Bouyid , cited above, §§ 83-84, and Iustin   Robertino Micu v. Romania , no.   41040/11, § 71, 13 January 2015). 38 .     The foregoing is sufficient for the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this respect. (ii)     Lack of adequate medical treatment at the police station 39.     The Court observes that the second, third and fourth applicants also complained that the police authorities had failed to provide them with adequate medical care. 40.     As regards the second applicant, it appears from her statements before the investigating judge and the trial court that she refused medical assistance (see paragraphs 9 and 15 above). Accordingly, the Court finds implausible her allegations that she had not been provided with medical assistance while in police custody. 41.     As regards the third applicant, it is uncontested that she had partial paralysis and suffered from high blood pressure prior to her detention (see paragraph 18 above). Furthermore, it appears that she was not given any form of medication while in police custody, although she asked for certain types of medication without informing the police officers of her precise medical condition at that time (see paragraphs 10 and 15 above). On the morning of 21 November 2008, during the taking of blood samples in the clinic, she was given appropriate medication for treating high blood pressure (see paragraph 10 above). The Court is therefore willing to accept that the applicant’s inability to take her medication during the detention could have caused her some distress. However, it notes that the root cause of her potential anxiety lasted a very short time (she received medication on the morning of 21   November 2008) and that, according to the available evidence, there is nothing to indicate that not receiving medical treatment for her blood pressure during such a short period had any adverse medical consequences for her health (see paragraph 18 above). Assessing the relevant facts as a whole, the Court considers that neither the third applicant’s state of health nor the potential distress generated by the brief lack of medication alone attained a sufficient level of severity in the particular circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis , Viorel   Burzo v. Romania , nos.   75109/01 and 12639/02, §   86, 30 June 2009). 42.     As regards the fourth applicant, the evidence suggests that she was a heroin addict and that, while in police custody, she was vomiting (see paragraph 15 above). This situation may have exacerbated to a certain extent her feelings of distress, anguish and fear anguish (see paragraph 18 above). However, there is nothing in the case-file to suggest that the seriousness of her condition necessitated urgent medical treatment. The Court further observes that a doctor visited the police station at around 4 a.m. on   21   November 2008 (see paragraph 11 above), but neither the records nor the other documentation indicate that the fourth applicant asked that he or any other doctor examine her. She could have also asked for medical assistance on the morning of 21 November 2008 as did the third applicant (see   preceding   paragraph). On the basis of the evidence before it and assessing the relevant facts as a whole, the Court does not find it established that the fourth applicant was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment contained in Article 3 of the Convention (see, conversely, McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 50390/99, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2003-V). 43.     Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this respect. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 44.     The applicants complained that their right to respect for their private life had been violated in that blood samples and photographs had been taken while they were in police custody and the photographs had subsequently been published on the Ministry’s website and in certain media outlets, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Admissibility The parties’ submissions 45 .     The Government consented that the taking of blood samples had constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life. However, in their view, that interference had been in accordance with the law (see paragraph 22 above), which had been sufficiently precise and foreseeable, and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of protecting public health and detecting and preventing the spread of contagious diseases. Furthermore, it had been proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved. In that connection, they maintained that the taking of the blood samples had been done under the supervision of medical personnel and that the applicants had given their consent, as could be seen from their statements before the investigating judge (see paragraphs 8-10 above). 46.     As to the publication of their photographs on the Ministry’s website and in the media outlets, the Government argued that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had failed to institute proceedings before the administrative courts against the Agency’s decision of 8 June 2009 (see paragraph 13 above). 47.     The applicants maintained that the Protection of Patients’ Rights Act provided for the taking of blood samples only in the event of medical necessity. In that connection, they maintained that the taking of blood had been the result of numerous arbitrary actions by the police and judicial authorities. The order for the taking of blood samples targeting sex workers had not been necessary in a democratic society. There had been no concrete evidence of transmission to other persons, nor had the applicants intended to transmit the hepatitis C virus. They had regularly used condoms when providing sexual services. 48.     In the applicants’ view, the action for damages before the civil courts had been an effective legal remedy for the complaints under this head. The Court’s assessment (a)    Taking of blood samples from the applicants 49.     The Court reiterates that the respect for private life as protected by Article 8 involves respect for a person’s physical integrity and the taking of a blood sample constitutes a medical intervention which, even if it is of minor importance, must consequently be considered an interference with the right to privacy (see Schmidt v. Germany (dec.), no. 32352/02, 5 January 2006, and Caruana v. Malta (dec.), no. 41079/16, § 26, 15 May 2018). Such interference will be in breac