CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 3 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42110/17 Peeter JERET against Estonia lodged on 9 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The complaints concern handcuffing the applicant, a prisoner, to the hospital bed during a four-day period after he had suffered a heart attack, and the use of force by the prison officers when applying the handcuffs after the applicant had refused to wear them. The applicant’s request for the institution of criminal proceedings was dismissed by the District Prosecutor’s Office and the Office of the Prosecutor General as no elements of a criminal offence could be ascertained. His request to be granted a State legal-aid lawyer ( advokaat ) in order to lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeal was dismissed due to the potential appeal having low prospect of success. The Supreme Court concurred to that assessment. The applicant did not lodge any civil claims. The applicant raises complaints under the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? (see Dimcho Dimov v.   Bulgaria , no. 57123/08, 16 December 2014; Julin v. Estonia , nos.   16563/08 and 3 others, 29 May 2012; Henaf v. France , no. 65436/01, ECHR   2003 ‑ XI)?   2.     In the view of the applicant’s medical condition, did his handcuffing to the bed during his stay at the hospital and the use of force when applying the handcuffs on him constitute inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine , no. 56660/12, 24 March 2016; Dimcho Dimov v. Bulgaria , no. 57123/08, 16   December 2014; Okhrimenko v. Ukraine , no. 53896/07, 15 October 2009; Henaf v. France , no. 65436/01, ECHR 2003 ‑ XI)?   3.     Having regard to the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention, was there an effective official investigation into the alleged ill ‑ treatment of the applicant? ( Dimcho Dimov v. Bulgaria , no. 57123/08, 16   December 2014; Wiktorko v. Poland , no. 14612/02, 31 March 2009; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV)?