CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 55053/20 and 14488/21 Fevzi KAYACAN against Türkiye and Mehmet ORTAÇ against Türkiye lodged on 19 November 2020 and 24 February 2021 respectively communicated on 5 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern allegations of ill-treatment raised by the applicants who were detained in prison. During their detention, they were transferred to hospitals on various dates for medical examinations and treatments. According to the first applicant, he was examined by a doctor while handcuffed and restrained to the side of his bed with handcuffs during his treatment. According to the second applicant, following his surgery, he was restrained to his bed in a similar manner in the intensive care unit, with two guards stationed by his side and another positioned at the door of the hospital unit. The applicants lodged complaints before the domestic authorities, asserting that receiving medical care while being handcuffed to the side of the bed had been unnecessary and unlawful. The domestic authorities found that the procedure applied by the authorities was in line with the relevant legislation and practice. The Constitutional Court found their individual applications inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. The applicants allege that receiving medical care while handcuffed constituted treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. They further complain under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention about the lack of effectiveness and outcome of the investigations and that the judicial decisions concerning their complaints lacked sufficient reasoning.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their being handcuffed during their medical examination and treatment (see Avcı and Others v.   Turkey , no. 70417/01, §§ 32-45, 27 June 2006)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection against inhuman or degrading treatment, did the investigations carried out by the domestic authorities into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in the present cases satisfy the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see   Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§   114-123, ECHR 2015)?