Post by nijhumnia033 on Jan 11, 2024 8:21:06 GMT
The Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court, in a ruling whose rapporteur was Judge Cándido Conde-Pumpido Tourón, has recognized that the plaintiff'**CENSORED** right to effective judicial protection has been violated, in relation to the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment, considering the judicial investigation of his criminal complaint insufficient. The appellant stated that she was subjected to an unnecessary body search with full nudity at the police station, before entering the cell. The case studied by the Second Chamber is the following: The appellant reported before the courts of Badajoz that she had been subjected to an unnecessary and humiliating strip search during her judicially agreed upon police detention as the perpetrator of an alleged crime of disobedience.
The complaint was admitted for processing and, as investigative measures, the investigating magistrate-judge asked the Head of the Family and Women'**CENSORED** Police Unit, of which the agents who had carried out the Phone Number Data arrest were part, to forward the report then prepared, identify the police officer who carried out the reported search and inform about its need and the applicable protocol for carrying it out. The complainant presented medical reports that included the assistance that had been provided to her during and after her arrest. And, once she received the requested police report, in which the court was told that at no time was the detainee ordered to undress completely, she personally heard the complainant make a statement.
Headquarters of the Constitutional Court (Photo: Constitutional Court) During her statement, the complainant handed over to the court several audio recordings that she had made surreptitiously from the time she was arrested until she entered the police cell. Ruling out that the development of the arrest had been recorded by the video cameras existing in the police station, the investigating judge provisionally dismissed the complaint after considering that the investigation had been sufficient, that the reported facts had not been duly accredited nor, if they had been been, they would be criminally relevant, as they did not constitute the attack on moral integrity (art. 175 of the Penal Code) that had been reported.
The complaint was admitted for processing and, as investigative measures, the investigating magistrate-judge asked the Head of the Family and Women'**CENSORED** Police Unit, of which the agents who had carried out the Phone Number Data arrest were part, to forward the report then prepared, identify the police officer who carried out the reported search and inform about its need and the applicable protocol for carrying it out. The complainant presented medical reports that included the assistance that had been provided to her during and after her arrest. And, once she received the requested police report, in which the court was told that at no time was the detainee ordered to undress completely, she personally heard the complainant make a statement.
Headquarters of the Constitutional Court (Photo: Constitutional Court) During her statement, the complainant handed over to the court several audio recordings that she had made surreptitiously from the time she was arrested until she entered the police cell. Ruling out that the development of the arrest had been recorded by the video cameras existing in the police station, the investigating judge provisionally dismissed the complaint after considering that the investigation had been sufficient, that the reported facts had not been duly accredited nor, if they had been been, they would be criminally relevant, as they did not constitute the attack on moral integrity (art. 175 of the Penal Code) that had been reported.