CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 octobre 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 23 October 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 84523/17 Abdeljalil DARAIBOU against Croatia lodged on 19 December 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under the substantive and procedural aspects of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that the State is responsible for not preventing a life-threatening situation (fire in a detention centre for asylum ‑ seekers) owing to which he suffered grave bodily injuries and that no effective investigation has been carried out in that respect. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant have an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints? If so, has he exhausted available domestic remedies?   2.     Has the applicant’s right to life and/or his right not to be ill-treated, ensured by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, been violated in the present case (see, in particular, Osman v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII; and Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII)?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life and the right not to be ill-treated (see paragraph   104 of Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII, see also paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Articles   2 and/or 3 of the Convention?