CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 2851/21 Rasim Eşref ÇITAK against Türkiye lodged on 25 December 2020 communicated on 31 March 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations of torture and ill ‑ treatment in custody. The applicant, who used to serve as a trainee lieutenant at the Special Forces, was arrested by the authorities at the Headquarters of the Special Forces in the morning of 16 July 2016 on suspicion of having participated in the coup attempt. He remained in police custody until 17   July 2016, when he was placed in pre-trial detention by the Magistrates’ Court. A medical report drawn up on 17 July 2016, upon his admission to Mamak Military Prison, noted that he had several bruises on multiple parts of his body, such as his arms and legs. The CCTV footage in the case file shows that he was carried by several individuals, with his hands and feet tied together. During the criminal proceedings against him, at the hearings on 26   April 2017 and 23 March 2019, the applicant raised his allegations of ill-treatment before the Ankara Assize Court. On 4 April 2019 he submitted a criminal complaint to the Ankara Public Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his police custody between 16 and 17 July 2016. He alleged that he had been blindfolded, with his mouth gagged and his hands and feet bound together behind his back in a position referred to as a “hogtie”. He submitted that he had been dragged on the stairs, punched, kicked, deprived of food and insulted. On 30 October 2019 the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute, finding that there was not sufficient evidence to bring a criminal case against the officers, aside from the applicant’s abstract allegations. It noted that while the medical reports indicated some findings, they did not conclusively establish signs of torture against the applicant. Additionally, the applicant had filed his complaint nearly three years after the events, which hindered the prosecution’s ability to gather any evidence. On 26 June 2020 the Constitutional Court found the applicant’s individual application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. The applicant argues that he was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of the State agents while he was in custody, and that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015, and Salin and Karşin v.   Turkey , no.   44188/09, §§ 60-72, 23 June 2015)?   The Government are invited to submit all the medical reports obtained in respect of the applicant during his custody between 16 July 2016 and 17   July 2016. 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid , cited above, §§   114-23, and Salin and Karşin , cited above, §§   75-81)?