92 Human Rights in Counter-Terrorism Investigations Case Study – Medical attention* X is suspected of being a member of a terrorist organization and of having carried out bomb attacks. He is arrested and taken into police custody. His first medical examination takes place on the 14th day of his custody and indicates both recent injuries to his forehead and left temple and a pre-existent severe ophthalmological condition. The doctor prescribes him three days of rest for his recent injuries and recommends that he undergo eye surgery for his preexistent condition. X is then placed in pre-trial detention. At that time, X files a complaint for ill-treatment for his recent injuries. The police officers who were on duty during his custody state that these injuries have been caused by the force used during his arrest and the fact that X hit his head against the door while attempting to escape during questioning. X is subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for carrying out terrorist bombings. While in detention he is examined by various specialists on different occasions concerning his ophthalmological problems. All doctors recommend that X be operated upon. For six years, X’s surgery is repeatedly postponed and his condition deteriorates, causing him considerable pain and leading doctors to stress, yet again, the urgency of his treatment. Question: Have the authorities failed to provide X with medical attention? Can they be held responsible for cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? Answering this question requires differentiating between X’s most recent injuries and his pre-existent severe ophthalmological condition. Since X’s most recent injuries took place while he was in custody, police officers have to provide a plausible explanation as to how he was injured. They must give evidence establishing the facts they allege and casting doubts on X’s allegations. In the present case, there was no medical examination following X’s arrest. If force used during the arrest had caused X’s injuries, it should have been established at that time and police officers should have provided proof that the use of force was proportionate and absolutely necessary. In the absence of immediate medical examination, there is nothing to corroborate the police officers’ version of facts. In addition, no police record mentions the existence of