CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 1 mars 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE32676A4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s44D84940 { page-break-before:left; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s94C36C9A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s6A184BC2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s4673F580 { width:321.53pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sE76CCFE2 { width:24.11pt; display:inline-block } .sBCE88E5A { width:292.75pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s8344FE65 { width:286.08pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sB105E5F6 { width:23.45pt; display:inline-block } .s8D3E23FF { width:279.41pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sCDC838F7 { width:308.18pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sDD6C358F { width:266.06pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s27C6991 { width:259.39pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2BB35D83 { width:294.84pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s70F2274A { width:289.4pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s44EE2A41 { width:24.79pt; display:inline-block } .s8267A9F4 { width:22.78pt; display:inline-block } .sB9EA6F34 { width:159pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s2142296D { width:102.31pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s856B33A2 { width:47.65pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sBD57CE53 { width:21.68pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA8146E40 { text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s968A8F81 { width:4pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s1C105E14 { font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB59ECB2 { width:16.35pt; display:inline-block } .s7C119006 { width:5.02pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; display:inline-block } .s7C285904 { width:10.35pt; display:inline-block } .s6EFAC577 { width:17.69pt; display:inline-block } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB1BE0357 { width:15.03pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s48495C9C { width:15.01pt; display:inline-block } .s36603326 { width:18.34pt; display:inline-block } .s9AFF8173 { width:17.68pt; display:inline-block } .sD8D7341E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFA66E556 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; font-size:12pt } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s642D28CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-72pt; font-size:12pt } .s534576BA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9025B625 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s35535112 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s6006223D { width:2.35pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9DF1AED8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:12pt } .sB7CF44A4 { width:20.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s85325123 { width:28.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF1330D27 { width:17.36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s604B402D { width:24.02pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC6BA386F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:113.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:12pt } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sE0395384 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s589818D7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s1AD0FBFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s4079F75 { width:25.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sADA066E4 { margin-left:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sEF3D8FF8 { width:9.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s5146B6F8 { width:24.35pt; display:inline-block } .s38685CCB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s73791EFB { width:24.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s893C0E94 { width:32pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s87AF673 { width:6.43pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s174245BC { width:10.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32F59EDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sBC70BA36 { width:18.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB8C78B08 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:84.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s67CE261 { width:18.87pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAE29AFAE { width:0.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB8E5A13A { text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; list-style-position:inside } .s8C1ECD2D { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:normal } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s61D4D4FB { text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE3CBA86F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s9A1628E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sAF1EE20D { width:14.08pt; display:inline-block } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4FDA2D6D { width:15.68pt; display:inline-block } .sC33DAD88 { width:22.43pt; display:inline-block } .sDA2B7AF4 { width:26.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF50659C9 { width:22.06pt; display:inline-block } .sA198395 { width:22.4pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }           EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                       Application No. 21986/93       Behiye Salman       against     Turkey                   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 1 March   1999) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page   I.   INTRODUCTION   (paras. 1-45) ............................................ 1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4) ........................................ 1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-40) ....................................... 1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 41-45) ...................................... 4   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 46-260) .......................................... 6     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 47-70) ...................................... 6     B.   The evidence before the Commission     (paras. 71-244) .................................... 10       1) Documentary evidence     (paras. 71-161) .................................... 10       2) Oral evidence     (paras. 162-244) ................................... 30     C.   Relevant domestic law and practice     (paras. 245-256) ................................... 50     D.   Relevant international material     (paras. 257-260) ................................... 52   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 261-360) ........................................ 54     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 261) ........................................ 54     B.   Points at issue     (paras. 262-263) ................................... 54     C.   The evaluation of the evidence     (paras. 264-306) ................................... 54         TABLE OF CONTENTS   Page     D.   As regards Article 2 of the Convention     (paras. 307-324) ................................... 68       CONCLUSION     (para. 325) ........................................ 72     E.   As regards Article 3 of the Convention     (paras. 326-330) ................................... 72       CONCLUSION     (para. 331) ........................................ 73     F.   As regards Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention     (paras. 332-339) ................................... 73       CONCLUSION     (para. 340) ........................................ 75     G.   As regards Article 18 of the Convention     (paras. 341-344) ................................... 75       CONCLUSION     (para. 345) ........................................ 76     H.   As regards Former Article 25 of the Convention     (paras. 346-356) ................................... 76       CONCLUSION     (para. 356) ........................................ 78     I.   Recapitulation     (paras. 357-361) ................................... 78       CONCURRING OPINION OF MR E.A. ALKEMA ..................... 79     APPENDIX I :     DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                              ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION .............. 80   APPENDIX   II : PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BODY OF AGIT SALMAN ...... 88       I.   INTRODUCTION      The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.   The application      The applicant is a Turkish citizen resident in Adana and born in 1942. She is represented before the Commission by Professor K. Boyle and Professor   F. Hampson, both lecturers at the University of Essex.      The application is directed against Turkey. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents, Mr. A. Gündüz and Mr.   S.   Alpaslan.      The applicant complains that her husband died as a result of torture while in police custody. She invokes Articles 2, 3, 6, 13 and 18 of the Convention. She also complains of intimidation exerted on her in relation to her application, invoking former Article 25 of the Convention.   B.   The proceedings      The application was introduced on 20 May 1993 and registered on 7 June 1993.      On 30 August 1993, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.      The Government's observations were submitted on 31 January 1994, after an extension in the time-limit. The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 23   March 1994 and further documents on 13   April 1994.      On 27 June 1994, the Commission adjourned further examination of the application with a view to examining it at its session commencing on 10 October 1994. It requested that the Government provide information about pending proceedings in the High Court of Appeals.      On 11 October 1994, the Commission decided that the adjournment should not be prolonged and invited the Government to submit any further observations on the admissibility and merits which they might wish.   By letter dated 11 January 1995, the Government submitted further observations.   On 20 February 1995, the Commission declared the application admissible.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 24   February 1995 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. They were also invited to indicate the oral evidence they might wish to put before delegates.   The Government provided further information on 27 February 1995.   By letter of 15 May 1995, the applicant's representatives stated that they had no proposals to make at this stage.   On 1 July 1995, the Commission decided to take oral evidence in respect of the applicant's allegations. It appointed three Delegates for this purpose: MM. Pellonpää, Cabral Barreto and Bratza. It notified the parties by letter of 19 July 1995, proposing certain witnesses. The Government were requested to provide documents from the investigation file.   By letter dated 15 September 1995, the applicant made proposals as regards witnesses. By letter dated 14 November 1995, the applicant provided information about various witnesses.   By letter dated 26 February 1996, the Delegates requested the Government to provide documents from the investigation file and to identify certain witnesses.   By letter dated 30 April 1996, the Secretariat, on behalf of the Delegates, again requested the Government to provide investigation documents and information about witnesses. It also requested further clarification from the applicant concerning witnesses proposed by her.   On 2 May 1996, the Government provided documents from the investigation file and identified certain police officers.   By letter dated 9 May 1996, the applicant submitted a statement alleging that she had been summoned to the Security Directorate concerning her application.   By letter dated 27 June 1996, the Government provided the information that two witnesses proposed by the applicant were not in detention as alleged.   Evidence was heard by the Commission's Delegates in Ankara from 1 to 3 July 1996. Before the Delegates, the Government were represented by Mr. A. Gündüz and Mr.   S. Alpaslan, Acting Agents, assisted by Mr. A. ölen, Mr. A. Kurudal, Ms. N. Erdim, Ms. A. Emüler, Mr.   C.   Çakir, Mr. O. Sever, Ms. B. Pekgöz, Ms. M. Gülen and Ms. S.   Yüksel. The applicant was represented by Ms. F. Hampson and Mr. O. Baydemir, as counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Reidy and Mr. Mahmut Kaya (interpreter).   On 7 September 1996, the Commission decided to call an additional witness to an oral hearing to be held in Strasbourg and to invite the Government to make written submissions concerning allegations that the applicant had been subject to intimidation. By letter dated 13   September 1996, the parties were informed of these decisions. By letter dated 4 November 1996, the Government provided information concerning the absence of the police officer, Ali Sarı, at the hearing in Ankara.   By letter dated 22 October 1996, the applicant requested permission to submit further expert medical evidence. By letter dated 6   November 1996, the Delegates agreed to this request. By letter of 7   November 1996, the applicant requested that the Delegates hear evidence from a forensic expert, Professor Pounder. By letter of 18   November 1996, the Secretariat informed the parties that this request was accepted by the Delegates and enclosed the amended timetable for the hearing.   On 26 November 1996, the applicant submitted an expert report by Professor Pounder.   Evidence was heard by the Commission's Delegates in Strasbourg on 4 December 1996. Before the Delegates the Government were represented by Mr. A. Gündüz and Mr. S. Alpaslan, Acting Agents, assisted by Mr. M. Özmen, Mr. A. Akay, Ms. M. Gülsen and Mr. A. Kaya. The applicant was represented by Ms. F. Hampson and Ms. A. Reidy. The Government Agent made representations concerning the evidence of Professor Pounder and withdrew from the hearing of his evidence.   On 10 December 1996, the Delegates invited the Government to make proposals as to further expert evidence which they might wish to adduce.   By letter dated 13 December 1996, the Government made submissions concerning the allegations of intimidation.   On 9 January 1997, the Government requested that the Delegates hear evidence from a forensic doctor. On 28 February 1997, the parties were informed that the Delegates would hear evidence from the forensic witness in Strasbourg during the Commission's session in July 1997.   By letter dated 28 May 1997, the Secretariat reminded the Government that they should provide a curriculum vitae of the forensic expert.   By letter dated 30 May 1997, the Government informed the Commission that the forensic expert was unable to attend but proposed a second expert, whose curriculum vitae was enclosed.   Evidence was heard by the Commission's Delegates in Strasbourg on 4 July 1997. Before the Delegates the Government were represented by Mr. A. Gündüz and Mr. S. Alpaslan, Acting Agents, assisted by Mr. F. Polat, Ms. A. Emüler, Ms. M. Gülsen, Mr. D.   Karaca, Mr M. Bağriaçik and Mr. A. Kaya. The applicant was represented by Ms. F.   Hampson and Ms. A. Reidy, assisted by Mr. M. Kaya (interpreter).   By letter dated 24 September 1997, the Commission's Secretariat requested, on instructions of the Delegates, that Professor Cordner of the Victoria Institute of Forensic Medicine submit an expert opinion on the medical aspects of the application.   On 10 March 1998, Professor Cordner submitted his report to the Delegates.   By letter dated 17 April 1998, the parties were provided with a copy of the report and requested to submit their final observations on the merits by 22 June 1998. At the request of the Government and the applicant, the time-limit was extended to 24 August 1998.   On 20 August 1998, the Government submitted their final observations.   On 17 November 1998, the applicant submitted her final observations, after a further extension of the time-limit for that purpose.   On 1 March 1999, the Commission decided that there was no basis on which to apply former Article 29 of the Convention [1] .   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with former Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.   The present Report   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of former Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:       MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President       E. BUSUTTIL       G. JÖRUNDSSON       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK       A. WEITZEL       J.-C. SOYER     Mrs   G.H. THUNE     Mr.   F. MARTINEZ     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM.   L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS       M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO       B. CONFORTI     Sir   Nicolas BRATZA     MM.   I. BÉKÉS       D. ŠVÁBY       G. RESS       A. PERENIĆ       C. BÎRSAN       K. HERNDL       E. BIELIŪNAS       E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM.   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV   The text of this Report was adopted on 1 March 1999 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with former Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to former Article 31 of the Convention, is:     (i)   to establish the facts, and     (ii)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed as Appendix I and the photographs of the body of Agit Salman as Appendix II hereto.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission. II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   The facts of the case, particularly concerning events on or about 29 April 1992 during the detention of the applicant's husband Agit Salman, aged approximately 45 years,   in police custody, are disputed by the parties. For this reason, pursuant to former Article 28 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission has conducted an investigation, with the assistance of the parties, and has accepted written material, as well as oral testimony, which has been submitted. The Commission first presents a brief outline of the events, as claimed by the parties, and then a summary of the evidence submitted to it.   A.   The particular circumstances of the case   1.   Facts as presented by the applicant   The various accounts of events as submitted in written and oral statements by the applicant and other members of her family are summarised in   Section B: "The evidence before the Commission". The version as presented in the applicant's final observations on the merits is summarised briefly here.   On 28 April 1992, at about 01.30-2.00 hours, four police officers came to the home of Agit Salman, looking for him. They questioned the applicant about Hıdır Salman, the nephew of Agit Salman. Agit Salman had previously been detained overnight on 26-27 February 1992, at which time he had been questioned about the whereabouts of his nephew. During this time, Agit Salman had been subjected to cold water treatment and caught a chill.   Agit Salman, who was out working as a taxi driver, was arrested at the Aksoy taxi rank by a team of three officers, Ahmet Dinçer, evki Taçı and Ali Sarı. The applicant and her family were informed by eye witnesses that he did not resist arrest. There was no mention in the arrest report or the incident report after his death that Agit Salman had resisted arrest. The oral evidence of the arresting officers also emphasised that the circumstances of his arrest could not have caused him injury. His arrest therefore had no direct bearing on his subsequent death.   Agit Salman was entered into the custody record of Adana Security Directorate by Ömer nceyılmaz at 03.00 hours. A little under 24 hours later, at about 01.30 hours on 29 April 1992, he was taken to Adana State Hospital by the interrogation team headed by brahim Yel, where he was declared to have been dead   on arrival. Dr Ali Tansı, who was on duty in the emergency unit of the Hospital at the time of Agit Salman’s admission,   stated that he had been dead for at least 15-20 minutes. The applicant disputes the accounts of the police officers as to what occurred during this intermediate period, in particular, their account that Agit Salman remained in his cell, without being questioned and that he fell ill, calling for help, that after 4-5 minutes he was placed in a mini van and taken to the hospital on a journey lasting 15-17 minutes and that during that journey there was a brief two minute stop while one officer applied mouth to mouth resuscitation and a heart massage. The accounts of the police officers are stated to be unreliable and implausible, particularly as to their claim that there was a resuscitation attempt, since the first time this was mentioned was before the Commission Delegates. Their evidence as regarded Agit Salman’s resistance to his arrest and his alleged breathlessness was unsubstantiated and self-serving. It was striking that it was the interrogation team who took Agit Salman to hospital   and that it was brahim Yel who took the statement of Behyettin El. Of the three suspects known to have been connected with the operation, it was Agit Salman who was the last to be detained (the others being Behyettin [2] El and Ferhan Tarlak) and there was no reason to delay the interrogation any longer. While Agit Salman was arrested at 01.30 hours, he was not logged into the custody record until 03.00 hours, a gap which is unexplained since it is denied that he was subjected to any preliminary interview. Further, the evidence by the officers as to the interrogation roles of the interrogation team was very evasive. Globally, the version of events is so flawed that the compelling inference to be drawn is that the story was constructed to be compatible with what the police officers believed that the medical evidence would show and provide a cover for the reality of what happened, which was that Agit Salman was tortured to the point that a heart attack was induced.   The applicant submits that, during his   24 hours’ detention, Agit Salman was subjected to torture which resulted in several wounds being inflicted on his body and which led to a cardiac arrest. The medical evidence shows that his death was rapid and not prolonged, as alleged by police officers. While he had a significant pre-existing natural disease of the heart, this had been fully compensated for and he showed no external signs of the heart condition. The heart condition could give rise to sudden unexpected death however and in this case resulted from being subjected to serious ill-treatment amounting to torture.   The presence of bruising on the sole of the left foot indicates the application of at least moderately severe force, and combined with the marks on the left and right ankles, this is consistent with the infliction of   “falaka” (the technique of beating the sole of the foot with a solid object to induce intense pain and suffering in a short period of time). The reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (the “CPT”) and the UN Special Rapporteur show that there was widespread use of this technique of torture during or around 1992. The bruising on Agit Salman’s chest overlying a fractured sternum has not been shown to have been caused separately. As injuries inflicted together, they could not have resulted from attempted resuscitation but the most likely cause would have been the result of a heavy blow. There were other suspicious marks and possible injuries eg. marks on the back, right little toe and in the armpit. The latter two could possibly have been electrical shock contact marks. It is not possible to resolve the causes of these marks conclusively due to the inadequacies of the autopsy procedures.   Attempts to clarify the possible causes of the injuries and provide a full and frank record of the injuries was not undertaken by the forensic personnel in Adana.   The applicant and her family were not informed of Agit Salman’s death until about noon on 29 April 1992, after Mehmet Salman had been summoned to the security directorate.   They filed a complaint with the public prosecutor the same day. On 30 April 1992, brahim Salman, the applicant’s brother-in-law, went to the morgue to identify the body. The family were able to collect the body the same day. While they prepared the body for burial, they saw evidence of discolouration and marks. The family arranged for the press to take photographs for evidence. The story was reported in three daily newspapers. The police wanted to bury the body under escort for fear that there would be a demonstration but the family undertook to bury the body that day so that there would be no risk that a demonstration could coincide with the burial on 1 May 1992.   On 24 January 1996, at about 14.00 hours, the applicant was taken to the Security Directorate, blindfolded and asked questions about her application to the European Commission of Human Rights.   She was told that she should drop her case to the Commission and was hit. She was requested to thumbprint a document while she was there.   On 7 February 1996, the applicant was taken to the prosecutor by two police officers and asked about her statement of means. Two days later, she was taken to the Security Directorate where she was brought before the Chief Prosecutor and again asked about her statement of means.   2.   Facts as presented by the Government   The Government's account of events as based on their observations are summarised as follows.   On 30 April 1992, after his arrest, Agit Salman fell ill while detained in the police cells at the Security Directorate. An autopsy was conducted which concluded that the case should be sent to the Istanbul Forensic Institute for clarification of the cause of death. In its report of 15 July 1992, the Forensic Institute found that the superficial traumatic changes on Agit Salman's body could be ascribed to resistance or struggle on arrest and that the breakage of the sternum corpus could have been caused by attempted resuscitation. It was their unanimous and considered decision that death was caused by the stoppage of the heart connected to neurohumeral changes brought about by the pressure of the incident because of his existent heart disease.   Following the quashing of the public prosecutor's decision not to prosecute by the High Court of Appeals, an indictment was prepared charging ten officers with homicide. The Adana Aggravated Felony Court acquitted the officers stating that "...there exists no sufficient evidence proving the ill-treatment of Agit Salman by the defendants thus causing his death”.   This decision, which was not appealed, became final on 3 January 1995.     Agit Salman was not interrogated by any police officers between his arrest and his falling ill in his cell. He was showing signs of difficulty of breathing prior to this. When he became ill, he was placed in a van and taken to hospital. They stopped the van when it appeared that Agit Salman's heart had stopped and police officer Mustafa Kayma carried out a heart massage. They were told at the hospital that Agit Salman was dead.   3.   Proceedings before the domestic authorities   On 29 April 1992, Agit Salman was pronounced dead at Adana State Hospital. His body was transferred from the hospital morgue to the forensic morgue for the purposes of an autopsy. On 30 April 1992, his body was identified by his brother brahim Salman and the body released for burial.   On 14 May 1992, a toxicological analysis of certain organs, blood and urine was submitted which found no trace of toxic, organic or inorganic substances.   On 18 May 1992, a histopathological report was submitted in respect of organs and spinal tissue.   On 21 May 1992, an autopsy report was issued by Dr Fatih en, recommending referral of the case to the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute.   On 15 July 1992, the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute issued a report, stating that the cause of death was heart failure.   On 19 October 1992, the Adana public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute. The decision stated that Agit Salman had been taken into custody on 28 April 1992 for participating in the Newroz celebrations on 23 March 1992, lighting a fire in the road and chanting PKK slogans, collecting money for the PKK and sending PKK recruits to the rural areas, being involved in attacks on the security forces, during which one person died and four were injured and being involved in the killing of Hüseyin Aslan on 5 February 1991. At about 01.15 hours on 29 April 1992, Agit Salman informed officers that his heart was giving him problems and he was taken to Adana State Hospital where he died. According to the forensic report, Agit Salman had a longstanding heart problem, any superficial signs of trauma could have been received whilst being apprehended and death was the result of stoppage of the heart due to neurohumeral changes brought about by the pressure of the incident as a result of a heart disease. Although the forensic report had stated that Agit Salman had received direct trauma, it had not been possible to obtain evidence justifying the opening of a case.   On 13 November 1992, the applicant appealed against the decision not to prosecute, claiming that Agit Salman had been interrogated and died under torture.   In a decision dated 25 November 1992, the Tarsus Serious Crimes Court rejected the applicant's appeal.   Pursuant to article 343 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Minister of Justice referred the case to the High Court of Appeals. It quashed the non-prosecution decision and sent the file to the Adana public prosecutor for the preparation of an indictment.   An indictment charged ten police officers (Ömer nceyılmaz, Ahmet Dnçer, Ali Sarı, evki Taçi, Servet Özyılmaz, Ahmet Bal, Mustafa Kayma, Erol elebi, brahim Yeil, Hasan Arinç) with homicide under case number 1994/135. Hearings took place before the Adana Aggravated Felony Court on, inter alia, 27 June, 9 September, 31 October and 1 December 1994. Oral statements were given by six of the ten police officers (Ahmet Dnçer, evki Taçi, Mustafa Kayma, Erol elebi, brahim Yeil, Hasan Arinç ), Temir Salman, the father of Agit Salman, the applicant and Dr Ali Tansı, the doctor on duty in the emergency unit at Adana State Hospital. A written statement was obtained from Behyettin El.   In its judgment of 26 December 1994, the Adana Aggravated Felony Court found that it could not be established that the defendants had exerted force or violence on Agit Salman or threatened him or tortured him in order to force him to confess. The superficial traumas on his body could have derived from other causes, for example, when he was arrested. The forensic reports indicated that Agit Salman died of his previous heart condition being compounded with superficial traumas. However there was no evidence to prove that the traumas were produced by the accused. It acquitted the defendants on the grounds of inadequate evidence.   B.   The evidence before the Commission     1)   Documentary evidence   The parties submitted various documents to the Commission. These included documents from the investigation and court proceedings and statements from the applicant and witnesses concerning their version of the events in issue in this case.   The applicant also submitted reports by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (E/CN.4/1994/31, E/CN.4/1995/34 and E/CN.4/1997/7), a 1993 report from the UN Committee Against Torture (A/48/44/Add.1 - 9 September 1993), and a report, “Deaths in detention places or prisons (12 September 1980 to 12 September 1994)” by the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey and four colour photographs taken by journalists of the body of Agit Salman at the cemetery on 30 April 1992. The Commission had particular regard to the following documents:   a) Statement by the applicant, undated, submitted with her application on 19 May 1993   At about 01.30 to 02.00 hours on 28 April 1992, police officers in plain clothes and special teams came to their house, banging on the door. When she opened, they asked for her husband Agit. She said that he was a taxi driver and worked at the Aksoy taxi stand. The officers opened all the doors in the house to check if anyone else was there. At about 02.30 hours, friends of her husband from the taxi stand brought his car home and said that the police had taken her husband away. On the following day, 29 April, at about 11.30 hours, there was a telephone call to the house. It was said that the police were at the taxi stand and were waiting to see her son Mehmet. Mehmet left. The police at the taxi stand took him to the security headquarters, saying his statement was going to be taken. They asked him if there was anything wrong with his father. Her son said that there was nothing wrong. The police then told him that his father had died of a heart attack and asked him to collect the body.     b) Documents relating to allegations of intimidation of the applicant     Statement dated 24 January 1996 taken by police officers   This statement, with a thumbprint by the applicant’s name, was taken by officers of the Anti-Terror Department of the Adana Security Directorate. It is headed “In relation with her application for help to the European Human Rights” and begins, “The witness was asked: You are asked to explain whether you applied to the European Human Rights Association, if you asked for help and whether you filled in the application form. Who mediated for your application?”   The statement states that three years before her husband died and she was unable to provide for her seven children. During the mourning period for her husband, two people approached her, whom she later learned were members of the PKK terrorist organisation though she did not know their names. They asked her to write a petition letter and sent it to Europe via the Human Rights Association. They said that they were her husband’s friends. Upon their instructions, she went to the petition typists next to the Adana Palace of Justice. They typed a petition letter and she sent it by post to the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association.   Six months later, she received a letter asking her to go to Diyarbakir and she went. She herself filled in the forms which they <the police officers> had shown her and was asked the questions in the forms.   The thumbprint in the application was hers. After posting them, she had not received any financial assistance. Her only reason in applying was to help her children. She did not know that it subsequently went to the authorities abroad.     Report dated 9 February 1996 by police officers   This report, signed by a superintendent and another officer, describes an investigation into the income declaration of Behiye Salman, enclosed with correspondence from the Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of International Law and Foreign Relations. It lists items of the applicant’s income, expenditure and her dependent children and relatives and appears to indicate that their investigation confirmed her declaration of means.           Statement, undated, submitted by the applicant’s representatives on 9 May 1996   In this thumbprinted statement, the applicant stated that she had been subject to various forms of pressure exerted many times by the police to induce her to withdraw her application to the European Court of Human Rights. The pressure was increasing. On 24 January 1996, at about 14.00 hours, two cars came to her house. Four people put her in a car and took her to the security directorate. Her eyes were taped. She was taken to a room where she sat down.   They asked her who and which organisations had introduced her to the European Court of Human Rights. She told them she applied through her lawyer Niyazi and the Diyarbakir Human Rights   Association. She did not answer when they asked who was helping her to pursue her case, since she feared the police. They insulted the people who were helping her and said that her efforts would fail. The interrogation continued until about 16.30 hours. Later, they took the tape off her eyes. They placed a typewritten sheet of paper in front of her and told her to sign. She said that she could not read or write and would not sign it. They said it was compulsory to sign. They said that the document was from the European Court of Human Rights. She was suspicious. They told her that she should voluntarily withdraw her case or they would torture her and send her to join her husband. Though she was scared, she refused to sign. They called her names and insulted her. She could not bear the pressure and signed the document. She did not know the contents of it. After this, she was allowed to go home.   On 9 February 1996, at about 12.00 hours, she was fetched in an unmarked car and taken to the second floor of the security directorate. She was told that she was to see the Chief Public Prosecutor. When she entered the room, the Chief Public Prosecutor was there, with five-six other people. There was a file in front of them. They asked her which organisations helped her with her case. She told them that she did it herself. They asked her about her property and belongings and the names of those whom she looked after. They made her sign the document and then said she could go.     c) Statements of the police officers involved in the incident     Apprehension report dated 28 April 1992, 01.30 hours   This report, signed by Assistant Superintendent Ahmet Dinçer and officers evki Taçi and Ali Sarı, stated that they looked for Agit Salman at Savas taxi stand. Upon being informed that he was waiting for a fare at the Yeilova leisure centre, they apprehended him there.     Statement of 29 April 1992 signed by the police officers who delivered Agit Salman to hospital   Agit Salman had been detained by the Security Directorate as a suspect for activities, including carrying out propaganda for the PKK, and attacking the security forces in an incident where one person died and four were injured. He was on a wanted list and was apprehended at about 03.00 hours on 28 April 1992.   At about 01.15 hours, the custody officer approached them, saying that Agit Salman had knocked on his cell door and said that he was ill. The custody officer had placed him in the hall. On the suspect's claim that his heart was giving him problems, they (undersigned) had taken him without delay to the state hospital emergency ward. They waited while he was examined and were informed that he was dead. The public prosecutor was informed. The statement was signed at 02.00 hours by Assistant Superintendent Yel and officers Mustafa Kayma, Hasan Arinç and Erol eleb.     Statement of Ahmet Dinçer dated 22 May 1992 taken by the Adana public prosecutor   The witness was an assistant superintendent. On 28 April 1992, his superiors ordered them to carry out an operation at about midnight. Agit Salman was wanted for his enrolment into the PKK, carrying out propaganda and provoking people to attack the security forces. They looked for him first at Savas taxi stand but he was not there. They found him at the leisure centre on the E-5 intercity road, waiting for fares. When they introduced themselves, informing him of his offence and that he was to go to the security directorate, Agit Salman said, "I'm innocent. You can't take me," and resisted arrest. They took him by the arms and forced him into their vehicle without beating him up.   There was some pulling and shoving.   Some marks on his body may have resulted from this but they did not exceed their authority.   Agit Salman was apprehended at about 01.00 hours and delivered to the custody officer Ömer nceyılmaz at about 01.30 hours. When they delivered him, he was taking shallow breaths, rapidly as if he had asthma. He occasionally drew deep breaths. Agit Salman was not interrogated since the operation was still under way and, according to their methods, interrogations only began upon completion of the operation. He was not taken out of the custody area. He became ill and lost his life due to natural causes.     Statement of Ali Sarı dated 22 May 1992 taken by the Adana public prosecutor   On 28 April 1992, the witness accompanied Assistant Superintendent Dinçer and officer evki Taçı   to take Agit Salman into custody for the offence of membership in the PKK.   They went first to the Savas taxi stand but he was not there. They found him at the Yeşilova leisure centre. When they told him of his offence, Agit Salman resisted, saying, "I am innocent. You can't take me away." They took him by the arms and forced him into the vehicle. There was some pulling and shoving but they did not act irresponsibly and they did not ill-treat or torture him. At about 01.30 hours, they delivered him to the custody officer Ömer nceyılmaz at the directorate. On apprehension, Agit Salman seemed excited and had difficulty breathing. They thought it was due to anxiety. He was not interrogated or taken to an identity parade. His interrogation was postponed as the operation was not complete. In his opinion, Agit Salman died of natural causes.       Statement of evki Taçı dated 22 May 1992 taken by the Adana public prosecutor   Pursuant to their orders, he went with Assistant Superintendent Dinçer and officer Sarı, to find Agit Salman who was wanted for PKK membership and running propaganda. They found him at Yeşilova leisure centre. When they told him the charge, he did not want to accompany them, saying, "I am innocent. You can't take me away." Upon his resistance, they took him by the arms, putting him in the vehicle by force. They were in civilian clothes but they had introduced themselves. Despite that, Agit Salman had resisted and insisted on seeing their IDs. Upon that, they put him in the vehicle by force. He was apprehended at about 01.00 hours and delivered to the custody officer nceyilmaz at 01.30 hours. When apprehended, Agit Salman was breathing rapidly. He did not ill-treat or torture Agit Salman. Due to the fact that the operation was ongoing, he was not interrogated or taken to an identity parade.     Statement dated 22 May 1992 of Ömer nceyılmaz taken by the Adana public prosecutor   This witness was on duty in the custody area from 18.00 hours on   27 April 1992 until 08.00 hours on 28 April 1992, when he was relieved by Servet Özyılmaz. Agit Salman had been arrested and brought to his office by Assistant Superintendent Ahmet Dinçer and officer evki Taçı. He carried out a search. He did not observe any mark or injury and placed Agit Salman in a cell. No-one interrogated him during the night, nor was any pressure applied. Agit Salman remained in cell B2. He was taken out by the witness for natural needs (eg. toilet, eating and drinking). The witness did not think that he had been interrogated before being brought to the custody area. Neither Agit Salman nor the arresting officers mentioned anything about his resisting arrest. He was not taken out to an identity parade with Ferhan Tarlak or Behyettin El.     Statement of Servet Özyılmaz dated 22 May 1992 taken by the Adana public prosecutor   The witness was on duty as custody officer from 08.00 to 18.00 hours on 28 April 1992. There were three individuals in custody in respect of Superintendent Yel's team - Agit Salman, whom he knew before (he had been taken into custody with his brother Remzi on an earlier occasion on suspicion of PKK membership), Behyettin El and Ferhan Tarlak. When he saw Agit Salman, he asked how he was and why he was there and they talked for a while. Salman said nothing about being beaten up or being ill-treated. He did not see any marks on Salman’s body. He did not ill-treat him and did not see or hear anyone else ill-treating him.   There were 12 single cells in the custody area. No-one wanted to interrogate Salman. During his duty period, Salman went to the toilet normally and ate the food delivered. He made no complaints. He transferred his duty to officer Ahmet Bal.   Statement of Ahmet Bal dated 22 May 1992 taken by the Adana public prosecutor   On 28 April 1992, he was on duty as custody