Communicated on 18 June 2020 Published on 6 July 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 15215/20 A .R. and Others against the Czech Republic lodged on 26 March 2020

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the detention of five allegedly minor applicants in the detention centres for adults, following the X-ray assessment of their bone age, which allegedly amounted to their ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

The applicants maintain that the assessment method used in their case, based on the X-ray of the wrist bone, is highly inaccurate and, according to expert opinions, it does not take into consideration differences among various ethnic groups. On the basis of the result of this assessment, the applicants, having been originally placed in the detention centre for families with children, were transferred to the detention centres for adults.

Moreover, according to them, the immigration detention centres where they were detained are prison-like facilities for adult men.

The applicants challenged the detention orders in court, the proceedings being currently pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants ’ detention in the detention centres for adults in Balkov á and in Vy šní Lhoty , following the assessment of their bone age based on the X-ray of the wrist bone, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the national authorities adopt the protection measures provided for by national and international law in matter regarding the reception of unaccompanied minors? Did the procedure for determining age respect the rules imposed by the domestic law and did it provide the applicants with the protection required in this type of situation? Has there been, in this respect, a breach of the guarantees provided for in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention?

3. Do the proceedings initiated by the applicants constitute effective remedies within the meaning of Articles 13 and 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants ’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention? Did the applicants have at their disposal other effective domestic remedies for their complaints, as provided for in Articles 13 and 35 § 1 of the Convention?