In the light of the above-mentioned, the Court considers that the applicant's submissions to the domestic authorities or to the Court as described above cannot be considered as "sufficiently clear" or constituting a "credible assertion", or an "arguable complaint" which would bring about a positive obligation on the part of a State under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Starovoitovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 27343/05, § 36, 27 November 2012; Ledyayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.

In any event, while it is clear that the authorities have an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to take reasonable steps to protect a detainee from inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by other detainees, especially if they have reason to believe that the detainee is particularly vulnerable - for instance because he or she is suffering from a psychological disorder (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, §§ 189-92, 3 June 2003), is of young age (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 86, 10 February 2011), or belongs to a category that is at heightened risk (see Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, §§ 69-70, 27 May 2008 (Serbs convicted of war crimes against Bosniacs and kept, unsegregated, in a prison where about ninety per cent of inmates were Bosniacs); Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 91, 20 October 2011 (homosexuals); J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012 (police collaborators); Aleksejeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012 (relatives of prison guards); Starovoitovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 27343/05, §§ 35-38, 27 November 2012 (private security guards); D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 81, 29 October 2013 (sexual offenders); Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014 (police officers); and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, § 90, 3 March 2015 (persons accused of sexually abusing minors)) - or to believe that the other detainees have an increased propensity to violence (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 57-60, ECHR 2002-II, and Oshurko v. Ukraine, no. 33108/05, § 72, 8 September 2011), there is no evidence - and the applicant has not elaborated on that point either - that in her case the hospital staff knew or ought to have known that she stood a real risk of being assaulted by the other patient in the shower.