CAT/C/68/D/818/2017
began to hit her and ask her where she had the things she had supposedly stolen at the
discotheque she was coming from. At that point, before putting her in a car, the officers
handcuffed her without telling her why she was being arrested, pulled her by the hair and
rammed her against the edge of the car door. On the drive to the Lonja police station, the
police officers repeatedly slammed on the brakes so that the complainant would hit her
head against the partition, and they laughed each time she did so. When they arrived at the
station, the female officer ordered the complainant to undress and took her money. Half an
hour later, she was told that she could leave.
2.2
As the complainant was in great pain, she asked the police officers, to no avail, to
have a doctor see her. The complainant called an ambulance when she was at the door of
the police station. At the hospital, she was found to have a broken nose, which needed
surgery. The surgical operation took place on 30 January 2013. She also had bruises on one
of her wrists.
2.3
On 28 January 2013, the complainant lodged a complaint against the four police
officers before the Court of Investigation No. 1 of Córdoba, claiming that they had tortured
her and had not fulfilled their duty of care when she requested medical assistance. The
Court began its investigation on 26 June 2013, taking a statement from the complainant and
collecting other evidence. On 29 January 2014, the doctor who treated her stated that the
complainant’s nasal fractures were not accompanied by bleeding when he treated her. On
31 January 2014, the Court closed the case. In reply to the complainant’s application for
reconsideration, the Court stated on 22 May 2014 that, in view of the conflicting witness
statements, it gave “greater credibility to the police officers’ version of events than that of
[the complainant]”.
2.4
On 10 July 2014, the Third Section of the Provincial High Court of Córdoba upheld,
on appeal, the decision of the Court of Investigation on the grounds that, although it did not
doubt that the complainant’s nose was broken, the statements given by other police officers
who had witnessed the night’s events, and the security camera stills showing that the
complainant had no visible injuries when she entered and left the police station, were
sufficient for it to dismiss the complaint. The complainant submitted an application for
annulment of proceedings in respect of the decision; on 5 September 2014, the Provincial
High Court ruled in the same way as previously.
2.5
On 16 March 2015, the Constitutional Court rejected the complainant’s application
for amparo, arguing the manifest absence of any violation of a fundamental right for which
protection could be sought.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant submits that the State party has violated her rights under articles 1,
12, 13 and 16 of the Convention. First, she maintains that the treatment she was given
amounts to torture or at least cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. She claims that she
was injured while she was under arrest, as she did not have any injury before her arrest and
the ambulance picked her up at the entrance to the police station. In accordance with the
findings of international bodies, it cannot be presumed that the injuries are attributable to
the complainant or to any resistance by her; 1 instead, the burden of proof rests on the
authorities, who must provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation. 2 The complainant
submits that these events caused her psychological harm, as a result of which she is having
to take medication, as confirmed in a report of 10 June 2013 signed by two psychiatrists
from the Health Service of Andalucía.
3.2
Second, the complainant claims that she was not informed of her rights at the time of
her arrest, and was not given legal or medical assistance while she was in custody. She also
claims that her belongings were confiscated on her release and that she was not given a
receipt for them. The failure to provide medical care, which was a breach of the duty to
1
2
2
The complainant cites Achabal Puertas v. Spain (CCPR/C/107/D/1945/2010).
The complainant cites European Court of Human Rights, Salman v. Turkey (application No.
21986/93), Grand Chamber judgment of 27 June 2000, para. 100.
GE.20-00488