CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 2025

.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 24 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43315/22 Fitim MUSLIU against North Macedonia lodged on 30 August 2022 communicated on 3 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations that the applicant was physically attacked and beaten on 3 August 2020, while serving his prison sentence, by a prison guard, in front of the prison canteen. Two levels of prosecution dismissed the applicant’s complaint regarding inhuman or degrading treatment, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that any crime had been committed by the prison guard. No oral evidence was taken from the eyewitnesses proposed by the applicant, and there was no investigation into whether video surveillance cameras were present at the location of the event, nor were any efforts made to obtain such material, had it existed. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the prison guard had ill-treated him 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 by a prison guard on 3 August 2020, while serving his prison sentence, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015; Andonovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 24312/10, §§ 95-96, 23   July 2015; Kitanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   15191/12, §§ 76-77, 22 January 2015)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or treatment (see Labita v.   Italy   [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; X and Y v. North Macedonia , no. 173/17, § 50, 5 November 2020), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in compliance with Article   3 of the Convention?