CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 9 December 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 45008/22 Aymael ROUX against Switzerland lodged on 15 September 2022 communicated on 18 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who has French and Swiss nationalities, was born in 1988 and suffers from schizophrenia. On 9 April 2018, during a random identity check in a park in Geneva, he was stopped by three plainclothes police officers from the drug squad. Although he presented his identity card, the applicant, due to his mental state and past assaults, questioned the officers’ authenticity. Becoming agitated, he called his mother. Noticing his distress, the officers decided to handcuff him. Still suspicious, the applicant attempted to flee, kneeing one of the officers, Mr L., in the groin before running off. He got into a passing car driven by his mother’s neighbour, Ms. B., who mistakenly believed he was being pursued by attackers. The police caught up with the vehicle and tried to pull the applicant out, shouting to the driver that they were law enforcement. Ms. B. then stopped and exited the car. According to the applicant, when he refused to leave the car and resisted by pushing and kicking, Officer S. punched him multiple times in the face, resulting in injuries and blood splatter on the rear window. The officer then pulled the applicant from the car, restrained him by the neck with the assistance of Officer L., and continued to punch him, even after the applicant had been handcuffed and was lying face down on the ground. Then the applicant was taken to the police station. The applicant alleged that the officers insulted him throughout the ordeal. According to medical records, he sustained a broken nose, head injuries, and a hematoma around his left eye. Later that day, Officers S. and L. filed a complaint against the applicant for violence against public servants. The applicant was found guilty of the charge and was fined, a decision upheld by the Geneva Court in July 2021. On 9 July 2018, the applicant filed a complaint against Officer S. for abuse of authority and assault. In May 2020, a criminal case was opened against the officer for abuse of authority and bodily harm. The investigation gathered statements from the applicant, his mother, Ms. B., and the police officers involved. On 30 June 2021, the prosecutor’s office closed the case, determining that the use of force was justified. The applicant appealed against this decision. In November 2021, the Geneva Court of Justice, and later on 17 May 2022, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, upheld the dismissal of the criminal case against Officer S. The courts concluded that the force used was justified and necessary to restrain the applicant and prevent potential harm to others. They found that alternative methods, such as pepper spray, were not feasible due to the risk of affecting the vehicle’s driver Ms B. However, the applicant’s claims that he was punched while handcuffed and lying on the ground were not thoroughly examined. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the police, who used unnecessary and disproportionate force, and that the domestic authorities failed to adequately investigate his allegations. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Dembele v. Switzerland , no. 74010/11, 24   September 2013 and Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland , no. 76813/16, 2   September 2021) ?   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?