The Constitutional Court has estimated the appeal of a woman who denounced having suffered an “unnecessary” and “with integral nude” and orders that an “efficient and exhaustive” investigation be carried out.

The sentence of the Second Chamber cancels the archive that decreed the court of Badajoz that led the matter and that in the opinion of the magistrates he acted “insufficient” and did not respect the right to effective judicial tutelage.

After the reporting of the complaint, the head of the family and women’s care unit of the National Police, who was the one who practiced the detention of the woman by disobedience, denied that she had been ordered to undress.
The affected one then presented the court a recording of audio that she had hidden in the dungeon and that she would pick up the voice of a policeman by telling her that she should take it away “everything”.

The Court filed the case by estimating that the facts had not been accredited – there were no recordings of the cameras – and that in any case they would not suppose the crime of attack on the alleged comprehensive integrity.
The archive was ratified by the Badajoz audience, in a resolution – also annulled now, “which indicated that the cacheo was a habitual police practice.

The CT recalls the doctrine of the Tribunal of Strasbourg on the obligation to carry out effective investigations before allegations of ill-treatment by agents of the Authority.
“The investigation carried out by the police conduct considered by the appellant as excessive and attentor to its dignity was not enough, while it did not facilitate the adequate clarification of the facts denounced,” says the court, which highlights that the recordings contributed by the woman made
“Verosimil” his complaint.

“It was relevant to try to clarify whether or not a body record with integral nude was performed or not practiced, if so, to determine what purpose and to what extent was a measure provided to the concurrent circumstances,” he adds.
And concludes by recalling that this modality of body registration, “in attention to its purpose, by its very content or by the means used, may reach a suffering of special intensity or cause a humiliation or embodiment of the passive subject and constitute, therefore
, a vejatory and degrading treatment, prohibited by Art. 15 of the Constitution. ”

The facts took place on April 10, 2019, when the woman presented himself with his two-year-old daughter in the courts of Badajoz to collect a documentation, as he had been required.
When she left her, she was approached by five agents, who took her to a police station and told her that, to fulfill a decision of a Zafra court, she should immediately deliver the daughters of her to her father.

She refused.
According to the complaint that it reproduces the TC, things continued like this: “After reading your rights, in a repetitive way, both the head of the unit cited as other agents, insisted that he would deliver his daughters in a voluntary way, arriving
To say that his way of acting supposed an insult to his intelligence and other style phrases, indicating that he could stay there 48 or 72 hours. Our represented, insistently, reiterated that he wanted to talk to his lawyer […].

As soon as they took to the minor of the police station, they went down to our represented the basement to review the review.
She was accompanied by a woman police of the UFAM.
They made the photos, they took the traces and opened a police record.

After the review he was told that he waited in a bench in front of the living room or control of the national police (here they all went with uniform), and after a while the same woman from the UFAM that had accompanied him
basement.
She told her that she accompanied her that she had to make a mess.
It would be 17:00 h.

There were many policemen at the door of the control room, at least three at the door, plus two others who were the review of him, who were also next door.
In the same place, opposite the police control room, he took him to the entrance of a room, without doors.
The only separation that existed between that room and the police control site was a scarce wall open to the hallway through which they passed and other agents could be peeked. […].

When Dona Sara stayed, only with the panties and bra, he told him to take it all, the panty too.
Once naked, she told him to give a spin;
She stayed with her back and then she told her to bend over.
The agent leaned down to look at the perineal area.
Afterwards, she was giving her clothes to be dressed;
All, less the bra of her, manifesting that she could not give it to him.
She left him between the objects that kept him in the registry.

Meanwhile, our represented listened to laugh at the police and talk to each other.
The others could appear to see the scene, there was no physical barrier that prevent it from it.
The police were there all the time. ”

The denunciation adds that the woman was arrested just as she left the courts, so she had passed the security control and it was not possible for her to take over a dangerous object, which made her intense cacheo unnecessary.

“As a consequence of the unjust, vejatory and intolerable treatment received,” the denunciation was added “suffers from acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress risk.”