Communicated on 4 September 2020 Published on 21 September 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 37574/19 P.H . against Slovakia lodged on 4 July 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns allegations ( i ) that the domestic authorities failed to protect the applicant ’ s health and well-being, as she fell out of a window at 7 th floor while in detention at the police station, (ii) that the applicant was subjected to physical and verbal abuse by police officers during her transport to and at the police station, (iii) that by setting aside her criminal complaint the domestic authorities failed to effectively investigate the incident, (iv) that the ill-treatment, the failure to protect the applicant ’ s life and the lack of effective investigation were the results of the applicant ’ s discrimination on the grounds of her Roma origin and her mental disability, and (v) that the Constitutional Court ’ s decision violated the applicant ’ s right to a reasoned decision .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the applicant, her age at the time of the incident and her mental disability, have the domestic authorities fulfilled their positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to protect the applicant ’ s health and well-being and/or to take reasonable measures to protect her from harming herself while in detention (see Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic , no. 23944/04, § 109, 16 February 2012; and, mutatis mutandis , Jasinskis v. Latvia , no. 45744/08, § 59-60, 21 December 2010, concerning the State ’ s obligation vis-a-vis persons with disabilities )?

2. Considering the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant during her transport to and while in detention at the police station, has the applicant been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see A.P. v. Slovakia , no. 10465/17, § 61-62, 28 January 2020 )?

3 . Having regard to the procedural aspect of the above provisions (see Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic , no. 23944/04, § 130, 16 February 2012, with further references, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95 , § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation into the applicant ’ s complaints by the domestic autho rities compatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, in view of the applicant ’ s mental disability, have the domestic authorities provided her with increased protection in the pursuance of her complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, M.B. v Romania , no. 43982/06, § 52, 3 November 2011)?

4. Considering the seriousness of the applicant ’ s allegations, is the Constitutional Court ’ s decision sufficiently reas oned, as required by Article 6 of the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999 ‑ I, with further references ) ?

5 . Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights on the ground of her Roma origin and her mental disability contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic authorities fulfilled their additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice may have played a role in the incident (see mutatis mutandis, Lakatošová and Lakatoš v. Slovakia , no. 655/16, § 75, 11 December 2018) ?

6. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 14 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are further invited to submit a copy of the criminal investigation file no. SKIS-15/OISV-V-2017.