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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. 23659/23 Sevda YEŞİLKAYA against Türkiye lodged on 22 May 2023 communicated on 3 April 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of ill-treatment suffered by the applicant in police custody. The applicant was arrested on 13 August 2016 on charges of membership of an armed terrorist organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). She remained in police custody until she was placed in pre-trial detention on 28 August 2016. The medical report drawn up on the date of the applicant’s arrest stated that there were no signs of battery or assault. A medical report drawn up on 22 August 2016 noted swelling, pain and haematoma in the right wrist with a statement in parentheses which read “hit on the wall”. The conclusion section of the report stated that no traces of battery or assault were found. On 14 October 2016 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the police officers, claiming that she had been subjected to physical and psychological violence, in particular sexual threats, while in police custody. She stated that the medical report drawn up on 22 August 2016 demonstrated that she had been assaulted. She further complained about the conditions of her detention, claiming that she had not been provided with sufficient food and access to toilet facilities. On 21 November 2017 the Public Prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers. The decision noted that there was no sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the officers apart from the abstract allegations of the applicant. The applicant’s objection was rejected by the Magistrates’ Court. The Constitutional Court examined her individual application and declared her complaint concerning the conditions of detention inadmissible for failure to exhaust legal remedies, as she had not filed an action before the administrative courts. It further declared her complaint concerning the police officers’ conduct admissible but found no violation of the prohibition of ill ‑ treatment. The applicant argues that she was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of State agents, and that the investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective, in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by State agents while in police custody, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015)?   The Government are invited to submit all the medical reports obtained in respect of the applicant during her custody.   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation by the domestic authorities concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by State agents in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see   Bouyid , cited above, §§   114-23)?   3.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’s custody amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 156, 10 January 2012, and Dudchenko v. Russia , no. 37717/05, § 130, 7 November 2017)? 4.     Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of her complaint under Article   3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of detention while in police custody ( see İlerde and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 35614/19 and 10   others, §§ 157-65, 5 December 2023)?   The Government are invited to provide information regarding any available and effective domestic remedies, including the case-law of the administrative courts, in respect of the alleged violation of Article   3 concerning conditions of detention in police custody.