PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SAJÓ

While I fully agree with the applicability in the present case of the standards developed by the Court, I have come to the conclusion that in the light of those standards there has been no violation of the substantive prong of Article 3. Therefore I have to respectfully dissent.

First, as to the applicant ’ s arrest, there is independent evidence that the applicant, who was already very agitated (see paragraphs 6-8 of the judgment), forcibly resisted his arrest on 27 October 2006. This is confirmed by the witness statement of a neighbour and the slight abrasions suffered by the arresting police officers. The medical report that was drawn up after the arrest did not indicate any signs of ill-treatment on the body of the arrested person (see paragraph 9).

The applicant also complained about the incident that took place when he was taken to the Ãœ sküdar police headquarters for an identity check (see paragraph 15). According to the second and third medical reports (see paragraphs 17 and 19) drawn up on 28 October, the applicant must have suffered injuries while in police custody as abrasions and ecchymosis (bruising) were noted on his body. In such circumstances the Government have the duty to provide a plausible explanation that the injury did not result from inhuman or degrading treatment. This duty to provide a plausible explanation is to be understood in the context of the requirement that a State can be held responsible for a violation of its international law obligations when facts conducive to such responsibility are proven “beyond reasonable doubt”, where such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. The issue in the present case concerns the rebuttal of a presumption (see Lab ita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121 , ECHR 2000 ‑ IV ).

While the investigative measures in the case are subject to criticism, I find the explanation provided by the Government plausible. Witness Ö .M. did in fact corroborate the version provided by police officer K.B., according to which it was the applicant who had provoked the police and behaved in a self-destructive way. The injuries sustained by police officer K.B. (see paragraph 5 of the judgment) indicate that the applicant continued to behave aggressively. Such behaviour would be consistent with the pattern that was observed earlier by other witnesses (aggressiveness, several attempts to throw himself out of the window – see paragraphs 7-8). The injuries suffered by the applicant while being restrained do not indicate that the use of force by K.B. was disproportionate (see paragraph 26).

For the above reasons I also felt unable to vote in favour of the excessive compensation granted for non-pecuniary damage.