Communicated on 13 January 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 33188/10 Alireza ZAREEÄ° against Turkey lodged on 3 May 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Alireza Zareei , is an Iranian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Van.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 2008 the applicant arrived in Turkey.

Following a complaint to the police, on 1 August 2009 security forces raided the applicant ’ s house, where they found parcels of drugs, including heroin and hashish, thrown out of the window of the house. Subsequently, the applicant and two other persons, E.K. and A.K., who had also been in the house, were arrested.

On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Van Ipekyolu State Hospital. The medical report drafted by the doctor revealed no sign of violence on the applicant’s body.

On 2 August 2009 the applicant was once again examined by a doctor who noted that there were lacerations on the applicant’s chest, back and arms.

On the same day the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor. According to the applicant’s submissions, later on the same day he was beaten by police officers, who battered and smashed his right leg, when he asked for permission to smoke. The applicant claims that the video recording of his police custody on the evening of 2 August 2009 could confirm the cause of his injury.

On 3 August 2009 the applicant was examined by a doctor who observed no additional injury on the applicant’s body. The doctor noted that the applicant’s right ankle was sensitive when examined. T he applicant was subsequently taken before the investigating judge, who ordered his pre-trial detention.

On the same day the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. Upon his admission to prison, a doctor observed that the re was an oedema and an ecchymosis on the applicant ’ s right ankle , which was swollen. In the medical report, the doctor noted that the applicant had declared that he had banged his leg against the wall in the police station, after having been refused permission to smoke . The report was not signed by the applicant. The doctor in the prison subsequently ordered that the applicant be transferred to a hospital for further examinations and treatment.

Later on the same day, the applicant was examined at the hospital of Van by another doctor, who diagnosed that the applicant ’ s right ankle had been broken. Subsequently, the applicant ’ s leg was put in a plaster cast.

In the following five months the applicant underwent regular medical examinations o f his leg in the hospital due to medical complications.

In the meantime the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Van public prosecutor ’s office alleging that his right ankle had been broken as a result of the beating by the police whilst in custody.

During the investigation, the public prosecutor took a number of police officers’ statements. They maintained that following the refusal of his request to smoke , the applicant had become frustrated and banged his leg against the bars and wall at the police centre .

Taking into account the description given by the police officers as to how the applicant ’ s injury had occurred, and observing that those facts had also been confirmed by the applicant in his statement on 3 August 2009 before the doctor in the prison, on 6 November 2009 the Van public prosecutor concluded that the applicant had banged his head on the door and his right leg on the wall when he was denied permission to smoke and thus had caused his injuries by his own conduct. As a result , the prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the suspected officers .

On 8 March 2011 the applicant ’ s lawyer lodged an objection against the decision of 6 November 2009.

On 11 May 2011 the Erci ÅŸ Assize Court quashed the decision of 6 November 2009 holding that the latter was based solely on the statements of the police officers and that during the investigation the applicant had not been shown photographs of the police officers who had been on duty at the time of the alleged ill ‑ treatment. The assize court further considered that the public prosecutor should have inquired whether there had been a camera at the police directorate and, if so, he should have requested the video footage.

According to the submissions of the applicant’s representative dated 8 November 2013, the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill ‑ treatment is currently pending.

COMPLAINT

Without relying on any Article of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and that the doctors drew up conflicting reports with regard to his medical situation. He further complains that the domestic authorities have failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was t he applicant subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment while in police custody , in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

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

The Government are invited to submit all documents concerning the investigation conducted into the applicant ’ s allegation of ill-treatment in police custody.