CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Published on 9 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24570/22 Doan MEMISHOSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 10 May 2022 communicated on 22 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of physical abuse of the applicant, who is of Roma origin, by police officers. During his arrest, he was allegedly beaten and dragged by the police, even though his trousers had fallen off. Two levels of prosecution dismissed the applicant’s complaint regarding inhuman and degrading treatment, concluding that there was insufficient evidence that any crime had been committed by the police officers. No oral evidence was ever taken from the eyewitnesses proposed by the applicant. The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that the police had ill-treated him during his arrest and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into those allegations. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment during his arrest, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v.   Italy   [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in compliance with Article   3 of the Convention?