CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2022

.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 7 February 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45233/20 Ulan ASAKEYEV against Lithuania lodged on 24 September 2020 communicated on 14 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a prisoner and a national of Kyrgyzstan, complains that he was subjected to tear gas and beating by prison guards during a prison riot in Lithuania, even though he did not participate in it and did not resist the guards’ orders. A criminal investigation, in which the applicant had not had status of a victim and where the guards’ actions against the applicant during the riot had not been examined, found that, given the inmates’ resistance, the guards had reasonable grounds to quell the riot with force. This finding was upheld by the Kaunas Regional Court’s final decision of 26   July 2017. Afterwards the applicant instituted civil proceedings for non-pecuniary damage, and on 7   March 2018 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the claim in part, having found that the data in the file confirmed that tear gas and rubber truncheons had been used against the inmates, that the applicant had consistently complained of having been beaten, which showed that he could have sustained damage. The court found that medical assistance had not been timely provided to the applicant, and awarded him 1,000 euros in compensation. The case was returned for fresh examination, and on 27   February 2020 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court held that lawfulness of the prison guards’ actions had already been assessed during the criminal proceedings and upheld by a final court decision of 26   July 2017. The court also found evidence as to damage to the applicant’s health to be inconclusive. Accordingly, even presuming that the applicant had sustained damage to his health, his claim could not be granted. The applicant appealed, noting that he had not been a participant in those criminal proceedings, nor had he been a suspect of having resisted the guards; instead, he had obeyed the guards’ orders during quelling of the riot. He also stated that, being a foreigner, after the riot he feared that special measures would be used against him again, which explained certain aspects how he had complained about damage to his health. By a final ruling of 20   May 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the claim, having found that after the riot the applicant’s health had been examined by prison doctors several times, only a hematoma on his hand was found and that he had been prescribed medication. Afterwards, he had also been examined at an outside hospital, where medication was prescribed and that treatment had been followed in prison. Accordingly, the applicant’s claim that he had not been provided with medical care in prison was unfounded. Under Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complains that, despite him having followed the guards orders when the riot was quelled, he had been subjected to physical and psychological violence, even feared for his life, and that he had not received timely medical assistance. He also submits that those circumstances had not been properly examined by the authorities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Saçılık and Others v. Turkey , nos.   43044/05 and 45001/05, §§   85-88, 5   July 2011; Artyomov v. Russia , no.   14146/02, §   145, 27   May 2010, and, mutatis mutandis , Gömi and Others v. Turkey , no.   35962/97, §§   49-61, 21   December 2006)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Gladović v. Croatia , no.   28847/08, §§   39 and 40, 10 May 2011; Milić and   Nikezić v. Montenegro , nos.   54999/10 and 10609/11, §§   93-95, 28   April 2015)?