P ARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE

ANDR Á S SAJ Ó JOINED BY JUDGE VLADIMIRO ZAGREBELSKY

To my regret I have to disagree with the Court ’ s conclusion that there has been a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Contrary to all the cases referred to in the Judgment, this applicant (who entered the police headquarters of his own will and was free to leave at any moment) could not allege even a semblance of ill-treatment (except a medical report issued two months after the incident that contradicted the report that was taken on the day of the incident at the hospital chosen by the applicant). He did not suffer any physical damage and (according to the Court, paragraph 34 above) the alleged verbal abuse he complained of was not enough to amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

Article 3 of the Convention requires the authorities to investigate allegations of ill-treatment when they are "arguable" and "raise a reasonable suspicion" (see, in particular, Ay v. Turkey, no. 30951/96, §§ 59-60, 22 March 2005). However, there is no such duty to investigate where there is no sign of injury. In the absence of injury I could not find any grounds for a reasonable suspicion.

In the absence of a fact that, at least arguably, brings the application within the orbit of Article 3 of the Convention, there is no reason to evaluate a futile investigation, even if it is part of a system which has been found repeatedly not to be in conformity with the Convention .

[1] The judgment is not yet final.