CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8204/23 Fatma FIRAT AKALTUN against Türkiye lodged on 1 February 2023 communicated on 15 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody. On 21 January 2018 the applicant was arrested after she had attended a protest in Istanbul. On 25 January 2018 she submitted a criminal complaint to the Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that she had been subjected to ill ‑ treatment in police custody. She argued that the police officers had handcuffed her hands in the back and had hit, insulted and sexually harassed her in the police bus following her arrest. A medical report drawn up on 21 January 2018 noted that the applicant claimed to have been hit on the head and complained of a headache and nausea. A second medical report drawn up on the following day noted a 3x4   cm ecchymosis on her left hand, a mild erythema measuring 1x1 cm on the right side of the vertebrae, two scratches on her chest, each 1 cm in length and 0.5 cm in width and mild erythema on both wrists consistent with handcuff marks. On 20 March 2020 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute any officers, finding that the applicant had participated in an unlawful demonstration and that proportionate force had been used because she had not dispersed despite warnings by the police. The prosecutor concluded that, apart from abstract allegations, there was not sufficient evidence indicating that the officers had exceeded their authority to use force. An objection lodged by the applicant against that decision was rejected by the Bakırköy Magistrate’s Court. On 5 October 2022 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s individual application for being manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant argues that she was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of State agents and that the investigation into her claims was ineffective. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment at the hands of State agents, 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 in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid , cited above, §§   114-23)?