Orak v. Turkey.

The authorities had failed to discharge their duty to protect the life of the applicant's son when he was subject to State supervision while in police custody. Moreover they had failed to adequately investigate his death, by merely accepting the version of events given by the accused and the other gendarmes present in the barracks, given that no explanation of the radical difference between the two versions of events had been forthcoming and in view of the nature of the injuries found on the various parts of the deceased's body. The Government had not supplied any plausible explanation for the areas of bruising found, among other places, on the applicant's son's arms and thigh, the soles of his feet and the crown and sides of his head or of the scratches on his genitals, whereas he had been in good health before he was taken into police custody. The way applicant's son had been treated when in police custody constituted treatment prohibited by Article 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]