CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 9 September 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 66069/16 Khosal Khan AHMADZAI against Hungary lodged on 8 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an Afghan national with refugee status in Hungary. The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant, at the time of the incident an asylum seeker, by a police officer and security guards in the Nyírbátor Detention Centre on 24 September 2012, and the alleged ineffective investigation into the incident. After an almost four ‑ year long investigation which had been discontinued and, following the applicant’s requests, reinstated several times, the final decision was given by the Attorney General’s Office on 12 April 2016 (service: 9 May 2016). The applicant complains that he has been subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities have failed to conduct an effective investigation into those allegations. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015; Borbála Kiss v. Hungary , no.   59214/11, § 36, 26 June 2012; and Kuzmenko v. Russia , no. 18541/04, §§ 40-44, 21 December 2010)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see 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 Article   3 of the Convention? Did the competent authorities act with the required diligence and promptness (see Menesheva v. Russia , no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006 ‑ III; M. and Others v.   Italy and Bulgaria , no. 40020/03, § 100, 31 July 2012; and Mustafa Hajili v. Azerbaijan , no. 42119/12, §§ 47-53, 24 November 2016) in securing the evidence concerning the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment, such as the security camera recordings?