CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mai 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 } Published on 19 May 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 2032/21 Abdurrahman DEMİR against Türkiye lodged on 17 December 2020 communicated on 2 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. The applicant, who was in pre-trial detention on suspicion of membership of an armed terror organisation, was brought to the Rize Security Headquarters on 18   July 2017 for further questioning by the police. The applicant remained in the police station until 19 July 2017, when he was brought back to the Rize L-Type Prison. A medical report drawn up on 19 July 2017 noted that the applicant complained of having been strangled and that there were rashes on his neck and scalp. Following his return to prison, the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Rize Public Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that during his time at the police station, a police officer had thrown his cigarette at him, then strangled him, and slammed his head against the door and wall. On 13 March 2018 the Public Prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute any officers, referring to the statements of the police officers who had claimed that the applicant had become agitated during questioning and had attempted to tear his t-shirt from the neck area, which could have caused his injuries. Moreover, the lawyer appointed to the applicant by the Bar Association had stated that he did not recall anyone reporting ill-treatment to him. Based on these factors, the Public Prosecutor concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the officers. On 27 July 2020 the Constitutional Court found the applicant’s individual application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. Before the Court, the applicant argues that he was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of the State agents, in violation of the substantive head of Article 3 of the Convention. He further argues under the procedural head of Article 3 and under Article 6 of the Convention that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective. 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 the medical reports obtained in respect of the applicant between 18 and 20 July 2017.   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, §§   114-123, and Salin and Karşin , cited above, §§   75-81)?