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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .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.   11684/23 Zeynel AÇIKMEŞE against Türkiye lodged on 1   March 2023 communicated on 3   April 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegations of a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment. At the time of the events subject to the application, the applicant was in pre-trial detention at Bandırma T-Type Prison. According to the applicant, on 5 February 2019 he was subjected to physical violence in front of the people in his cell after he asked the prison guards whether a football match would be broadcast. A medical report drawn up on 6 February 2019 noted two lesions under the left axilla extending towards the chest (hyperaemia and ecchymosis), a 2x2 cm oedema between the third and fourth fingers of the left hand due to stretching, and a minimal ecchymosis lateral to the left knee. The doctor further noted that these injuries could be treated by simple medical care. A second medical report drawn up on 14 March 2019 determined that the applicant had a horizontal tear in the medial meniscus posterior. On 6   February 2019 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor, claiming that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the prison guards. He stated that he had been assaulted by the prison guards, that his arm and fingers had been twisted by them, and that he had been taken out of the ward and handcuffed with his hands behind his back, stripped down to his underwear in a padded cell, and held there for more than two hours. On 10   April 2019 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the prison guards, finding that there was no sufficient evidence to show that an offence had been committed against the applicant by the prison guards. After having reviewed the camera footage of the event and examined the medical reports, the public prosecutor stated that the prison guards had used a proportionate amount of force to fulfil their duties. The applicant’s objection to that decision was rejected by the Magistrates’ Court. In the meantime, on 12 February 2019 the prison disciplinary board imposed the disciplinary sanction of a one-month restriction on visits on the applicant for acting in a manner that could cause fear, anxiety or panic in the institution. The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint concerning his alleged ill-treatment for being manifestly ill-founded. It found that the physical intervention by the prison guards had been both necessary and proportionate, and that the investigation had been conducted with sufficient due diligence, without any indication of a violation of the prohibition of ill ‑ treatment. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the prison guards and that the criminal investigation into his complaint was ineffective.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the prison guards, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR   2015)? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in the present case in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid , cited above, §§   114-23)?