CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFC8B7517 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:center } .s7BEB179E { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A85AEF2 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23692/09 M.C. against Poland lodged on 24 April 2009 QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     May the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34? 2.     Did the award of compensation made to the applicant constitute a sufficient and appropriate redress (cf. Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no.   22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010 and the cases cited therein; Shilbergs v.   Russia , no. 20075/03, §§ 66-79, 17 December 2009; and Ciorap v.   Moldova (no. 2) , no. 7481/06, §§ 23-25, 20 July 2010)? Reference is made to the judgment of the Warsaw Regional Court of 3 March 2010 (case   no. III C 558/09) which was upheld on appeal. 3.     As regards the events between 7 and 10 September 2007 in the Warsaw Mokotów Remand Centre, was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 4.     As regards the same events, did the prison authorities take all steps which could have been reasonably expected of them to protect the applicant’s physical and psychological integrity, having regard to the fact that he was charged with the sexual abuse of a minor (see Pantea v.   Romania, no. 33343/96, § 195, ECHR 2003 VI (extracts))? 5.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Beganović v. Croatia , no. 46423/06, §§ 69-87, ECHR 2009 ... (extracts))? Reference is made to the fact that the investigation which was discontinued by the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecutor on 31 March 2008 appears not to have taken into account the following factors: a)     CCTV footage from the applicant’s cell (cell no. 6); b)     results of the inquiry carried out by the Governor of the Warsaw Mokotów Remand Centre; c)     evidence of A.Sz., an eyewitness to the alleged abuse.