Communicated on 20 March 2020 Published on 25 May 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 63962/19 M.B. and Others against Slovakia lodged on 6 December 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns allegations ( i ) that the six applicants, minor at the material time, were mistreated by police officers during their police detention on 21 March 2009 in connection with a suspicion that they had been involved in a street robbery, (ii) that the ensuing investigation into these allegations was inadequate, (iii) that they had no effective remedy in that respect, and (iv) that both their ill-treatment and lack of an adequate investigation into it were the result of discrimination against them on account of their Roma origin. It involves que stions under Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Three of the applicants in the present case have a separate application (no. 45322/17) pending before the Court in connection with the treatment they had been exposed to immediately before the treatment contested in the present case, in the course of their transport to the police detention at issue in the present case.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . In connection with their claim that the investigation into the allegation of their ill-treatment has been ineffective on account of its course and length and the fact that the investigation in its trial phase is ongoing, have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in relation to their complaint that they have been exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?

2 . Have the applicants been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3 . Having regard to the procedural protection from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

In particular in view of its course and length, has the investigation complied with the procedural requirement of promptness inherent in that provision (see, for example, Y. v. Slovenia , no. 41107/10, § 99, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?

4 . Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their Rom a origin contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention?

Have the State authorities involved in this case complied with 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 impugned events (see, for example, Lakatošová and Lakatoš v. Slovakia , no. 655/16, § 75, 11 December 2018, with further references)?

5 . Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

Appendix

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Birth year

1M.B.

1992

2O.H.

1993

3I.K.

1995

4O .Ž.

1997

5T. Ž.

1993

6K.Z.

1998