CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2026

.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 } Published on 20 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7784/22 Ömer KULAÇ against Türkiye lodged on 3 February 2022 communicated on 31 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment during his arrest in the immediate aftermath of the attempted military coup. On 16   July 2016 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of having participated in the attempted military coup. He remained in custody until he was placed in pre-trial detention on 17   July 2016. A medical report drawn up on 16 July 2016 noted that the applicant had several scratches and ecchymoses across different parts of his body, including his face and neck. A second medical report drawn up on the following day repeated the findings of the first report and noted no new signs of battery or assault. In the criminal proceedings against the applicant, at the hearings on 25   May 2017 and 21 February 2019, he argued that he had been assaulted during his arrest. He claimed that he had been hit in the face, eyes and all around his body. He repeated these submissions in his petition for the cassation appeal dated 22   April 2019. After the rejection of his cassation appeal by the Court of Cassation, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, complaining of, inter alia, a violation of the prohibition of ill ‑ treatment. On 22   October 2021 the Constitutional Court rejected this complaint for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies, finding that the applicant had failed to bring his Article 3 complaint to the attention of the administrative and judicial authorities. The applicant complains under Articles 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment as demonstrated in the medical reports drawn up following his arrest. He maintains that although the authorities had been made aware of his injuries, they did not initiate an investigation into his alleged ill ‑ treatment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v.   Belgium   [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR   2015)?   2.     Considering the Constitutional Court’s inadmissibility decision, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010)? In particular, having regard to the procedural protection from torture or inhuman treatment, were the domestic authorities under an obligation to initiate an investigation of their own motion, either after the applicant’s medical examination on 16 July 2016 or following his submissions during the criminal proceedings against him   that he had been subjected to torture during custody (see Velev v. Bulgaria , no. 43531/08, § 60, 16 April 2013, and   Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia , nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, §§   48 and   57, 13 October 2020)? Was the absence of such an investigation in breach of the State’s positive obligation to conduct an official investigation under Article   3 of the Convention (see   Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia , no. 71156/01, § 97, 3   May 2007)?