CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 avril 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sAF7A583A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE7338FE4 { width:96.48%; border-collapse:collapse } .s6BEAA92B { width:6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3A138DC3 { width:30%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDE0DCC1C { width:21.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s83644B58 { width:20.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBA264DC5 { width:21.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6D33FF6D { width:6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s74DABE7C { width:30%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4248193D { width:21.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s938C3937 { width:20.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBB0B2F4C { width:21.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 22 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30251/23 Fesih KARATAŞ and Others against Türkiye lodged on 14 July 2023 communicated on 3 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of physical assault and verbal abuse by police officers during the arrest and detention of the applicants, as well as the lack of an effective investigation into their claims. On 15 August 2016 the applicants were arrested in the Hani district of Diyarbakır during an operation conducted as part of an investigation into charges of membership of a terrorist organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). They were then taken into custody. On the same day the doctors from the Hani State Hospital examined the applicants and drew up medical reports, noting mild abrasions on their bodies, which were deemed treatable by simple medical intervention. On 17 and 31 August 2016 the applicants filed criminal complaints with the public prosecutor, alleging ill-treatment by police officers during their arrest and detention. On 7 April 2017 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the police officers, stating that, based on camera footage analysed by experts, there were no indications of assault, insults or threats during the applicants’ arrest. Upon the applicants’ objection, the Magistrates’ Court found procedural deficiencies, overturning the decision not to prosecute, and ordered further investigations to address the shortcomings. Subsequently, statements were taken from the applicants, the police officers, the doctor who had prepared the reports and the local official ( muhtar ) who had witnessed the house search in the context of the applicants’ arrest. On 7   May 2018 the Magistrates’ Court ultimately decided to reject the applicants’ objections to the decision not to prosecute, citing insufficient evidence to substantiate their claims against the suspects. On 1 March 2023 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment under its procedural aspect, holding that the investigation had several shortcomings as it could not convincingly explain the cause of the applicants’ injuries. It went on to reject the applicants’ claims for non-pecuniary damages, stating that the reopening of the investigation constituted sufficient redress and ordered that a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Hani public prosecutor’s office in order for the latter to initiate a fresh investigation. This judgment was notified to the applicants’ lawyer on 13 April 2023. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they were subjected to ill-treatment by the police officers, that the criminal investigation had been ineffective, and that the remedy of individual application before the Constitutional Court did not provide an effective redress in respect of their complaints as it failed to assess the substantive aspect of their complaint and to award compensation for the violation found. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 1 March 2023 (No:   2018/25634), can the applicants still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, as regards the alleged breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Gäfgen v.   Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 115-16, ECHR 2010; see also, mutatis mutandis , İ.G. v. Türkiye , no. 32887/19, §§ 42-49, 27   August 2024)?   In particular, could the reopening of the investigation into the applicants’ claims be considered adequate redress to remedy a breach of the prohibition of ill-treatment at national level (see Gäfgen , cited above, §   116)? If so, have the applicants exhausted the domestic remedies following the reopening of the criminal investigation into their claims?   The Government are invited to provide information regarding the stage of the domestic proceedings following the Constitutional Court’s above-mentioned judgment.   2.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 83-84, ECHR 2015)?   Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the public prosecutor’s investigation into the applicants’ complaint of ill-treatment by police officers in breach of Article 3 of the Convention ( ibid ., §§   114-123)?   APPENDIX   Application no. 30251/23   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/ registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Fesih KARATAŞ 1966 Turkish Diyarbakır 2. Mustafa BİLİM 1988 Turkish Diyarbakır 3. Mehmet Askeri DUMAN 1983 Turkish Diyarbakır 4. Mehmet Emin GÜLSÜN 1982 Turkish Diyarbakır