Communicated on 16 May 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 44993/18 Milorad MARTINOVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 15 September 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s ill-treatment by a number of members of the Special Anti-Terrorist Unit on 24 October 2015. Two of the alleged perpetrators were identified, following their confession to the alleged crime, convicted and each sentenced to imprisonment for one year ’ s and five months ’ imprisonment. The others suspects remain unidentified to date. On 30 December 2015 the applicant reached a settlement with the Ministry of Interior and was subsequently paid 130,000 euros for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 25 July 2017, following the applicant ’ s constitutional appeal, the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (both substantive and procedural aspect), and ordered the Prosecution Office to conduct the investigation within three months. That decision was published on 8 November 2017. On 5 March 2018 the prosecution informed the Constitutional Court that it was impossible to identify the other perpetrators. The applicant ’ s representative was informed thereof on 16 March 2018.

The applicant complains of a violation of Articles 3 (both substantive and procedural aspect) and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?

2. Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-82 and 86-90, ECHR 2015; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 93 and 119, ECHR 2010; and Milić and Nikezić v. Montenegro , nos. 54999/10 and 10609/11, § 82, 28 April 2015?

3. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or inhuman or 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 (see El- Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 182-185, ECHR 2012, and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 316-325, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

5. The Government are also invited to submit the case files from criminal proceedings conducted against B.G. and G.Z. The Government are further invited to inform the Court if the prison sentences against B.G., G.Z., and R.LJ. became final and, if so, if they have served them.