Published on 8 June 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 55342/20 and 34571/23
M.P. against the Netherlands
lodged on 2 December 2020 and 13 September 2023 respectively
communicated on 19 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by five police officers and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his allegations.
In 2017 the applicant was arrested and questioned in connection with the disappearance of Ms X. At the time it was unclear if she was still alive. During arrest and questioning, the officers subjected the applicant to physical force and psychological pressure to obtain information about her whereabouts. As a result, the applicant suffered, inter alia, a fractured shoulder.
The Regional Court (in 2018) and Court of Appeal (in 2019) convicted the applicant for, inter alia, the rape and manslaughter of Ms X. He was sentenced to 28 years’ imprisonment followed by placement at the disposal of the Government with confinement in a custodial clinic (terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege – “TBS”). The courts acknowledged that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, but they found no grounds to reduce the sentence because his treatment had not resulted in a breach of the right to a fair trial.
On 23 June 2020 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction. Referring to the manner in which he had been arrested, questioned and injured, it reduced the sentence to 27 years and 8 months’ imprisonment followed by TBS.
In the meantime, on 18 January 2018, the applicant had pressed charges against the police officers involved in his arrest and questioning.
On 17 July 2019 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s complaint under Article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute the police officers, and it ordered the investigation and prosecution of the officers for making threats and (aggravated) assault.
On 4 July 2024, following further investigation, the Court of Appeal granted the prosecutor’s request under Article 243 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to acquiesce (bewilligen) in the prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute the involved officers, considering that the criminal courts would not arrive at a conviction and/or prosecution would not be in the public interest (opportuun).
Under the substantive and procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that he had been subjected to torture, for which he did not receive appropriate and sufficient redress because the four-month sentence reduction was insufficient and the (further) investigation into his treatment by the involved police officers did not comply with the requirements under the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in breach of the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-91, ECHR 2015, and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 87-90, ECHR 2010).
2. If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, did the domestic authorities acknowledge that violation, either expressly or in substance (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 115)?
3. If the previous questions are both answered in the affirmative, was the applicant offered appropriate and sufficient redress for that violation (see Gäfgen, cited above, §§ 116-19)? In particular:
(a) Did the four-month sentence reduction in the applicant’s criminal case constitute appropriate and sufficient compensation?
(b) Did the criminal investigation into the five police officers comply with the requirements under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention?