CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 juin 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .s796BDE8F { width:14.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s26138FEB { margin:0pt 26.05pt 0pt 35.45pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s16831CD2 { margin:0pt 26.05pt 0pt 28.35pt } .sD00D4AB3 { margin:0pt 26.05pt 0pt 46.35pt; text-indent:-18pt } .sF4A91944 { width:7.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6EB35364 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7C9AE9B7 { margin:0pt 26.05pt 0pt 18pt; text-indent:-18pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s146D0F5C { width:33.64pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7883F973 { width:3.65pt; display:inline-block } .s5AFAA008 { margin:0pt 26.05pt 0pt 28.35pt; text-align:center } .s1F821921 { margin:0pt 26.05pt 0pt 226.8pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s1ABFBEC0 { margin:0pt 19pt 0pt 35.45pt } .s7058A54 { width:0.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5903EA2C { width:32.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6B486ED2 { margin:0pt 19pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:36pt } .s3CD07594 { width:25.64pt; display:inline-block } .sF0A1D14D { width:11.63pt; display:inline-block } .sE48AF6A5 { width:1.65pt; display:inline-block } .s6F7B80B { width:32.98pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2A02A58E { margin:0pt 26.05pt 0pt 106.35pt; text-indent:-78pt } .sB6F2EAF1 { width:13.32pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s95E876F4 { width:14.29pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4E01D0EF { width:1.62pt; display:inline-block } .sD0B62CD1 { width:8.94pt; display:inline-block } .s1DFBA5D4 { width:32.29pt; display:inline-block } .s2979E4D7 { width:21.6pt; display:inline-block } .sA904E5F0 { width:7.65pt; display:inline-block } .sB6FAB6E2 { width:0.96pt; display:inline-block } .sC5DD18EF { width:2.29pt; display:inline-block } .s12C61C27 { margin:0pt 26.05pt 0pt 283.5pt } .s94826666 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-49.65pt } .sD3D1773B { width:35.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA0227BE4 { width:10.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s65C12FFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.45pt } .sBC77BC2A { width:22.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD5954E93 { width:13.35pt; display:inline-block } .s33E1B184 { width:256.83pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 34382/97 by DENMARK against TURKEY     The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) sitting on 8 June 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Mrs   E. Palm, President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson,   Mr   C. Bîrsan,   Mr   P. Lorenzen,   Mr   R. Maruste, Judges ,   Mr   F. Gölcüklü, ad hoc Judge,   with   Mr   M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar ;     Having regard to Article 33 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;     Having regard to the application introduced on 7 January 1997 by the Government of Denmark against the Government of Turkey and registered on 8 January 1997 under file no.   34382/97;     Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 48 § 1 of the Rules of Court;     Having regard to the observations on the admissibility of the application submitted by the respondent Government on 20 March and 17 April 1997;     Having regard to the observations in reply submitted by the applicant Government on 12 June 1997;   Having regard to the additional observations and documentary material submitted by the respondent Government on 27 June and 29 September 1997, 16 April and 10   September   1998 and 23 February 1999 and by the applicant Government on 29 June 1998 and 24 and 26 March 1999;     Having regard to the parties’ oral submissions at the hearing on 27 April 1999;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows:   THE FACTS     On 7 January 1997 the applicant Government submitted the application to the European Commission of Human Rights.   It contained the following requests:   “The Government of Denmark requests the Commission to examine the treatment by Turkish authorities of a Danish citizen, Mr Kemal Koç, during the period of 8 July 1996 to 16 August 1996, when he was detained in Turkey, and in particular the treatment Mr Koç was subjected to on 8 and 9 July 1996.   Furthermore, the Government of Denmark requests the Commission to examine whether the interrogation techniques applied to Mr Kemal Koç are applied in Turkey as a widespread practice designed to extract under severe pain and suffering confessions and other statements, whether incriminating or not, whether true or false.”   The allegations of Mr Kemal Ko ç     The facts relating to Mr Koç’s stay in Turkey in July and August 1996 are in dispute between the parties.   The applicant Government rely primarily on Mr Koç’s own explanations which are summarised below.   The respondent Government have not, in their observations on the admissibility of the application, expressed themselves in this respect, but have formally stated that “subject to the fact of the custody and detention period of Mr Koç ... it does not agree with any of the allegations made by the [applicant] Government with respect to ill-treatment of Mr Koç while in Turkey in July/August 1996.”   The respondent Government have reserved their right to discuss the allegations made at a later stage.     Mr Koç was born on 10 January 1957 in Turkey.   He moved with his parents to Denmark on 6 May 1972 and has since lived in Denmark.   Mr Koç acquired Danish citizenship on 10 February 1992 by naturalisation.   He is married and has two children.   The family resides in Copenhagen.   Mr Koç is active in the Danish-Turkish community and is currently a board member of Fey-Kurd (the Union of Kurdish Associations in Denmark (KOMAL)).   He is also a member of the Danish political party Enhedslisten .     On 3 July 1996 Mr Koç’s brother was killed in a traffic accident in Turkey.   When the family in Denmark was informed thereof it was agreed that, together with three brothers, Mr   Koç should attend the funeral in Turkey on 6 July.   Together with one of his brothers, Mr   Koç left Copenhagen for Ankara, via Istanbul, on 5 July.   However, problems arose at the airport in Istanbul where a data screen showed that he was wanted by the Turkish authorities.   An employee at the airport advised him to continue to Ankara in the hope that the matter would be clarified there.   Upon arrival at the airport in Ankara, he was told once more that he was wanted, and he was detained at the airport for 16 hours.   Over a mobile telephone he succeeded in informing the Danish Embassy in Ankara about the detention.   While he was staying at the airport, he heard other persons being beaten and crying for help, and therefore got increasingly worried about what was going on.   After the 16 hours had elapsed, he was allowed to leave the airport, because a relative of his, who is a lawyer, had made an enquiry and guaranteed his stay.   However, Mr Koç’s passport was confiscated before he could leave the airport.   Due to the detention, he never managed to attend the funeral, but instead, he stayed with his mother until 8 July.   On that day, he went to the local police station which he had been told to do.   There he was fetched by three civilian police officers who drove him to the police headquarters in Ankara.     Outside the police headquarters he was blindfolded and taken to an underground car park.   He was led up a staircase into a cool room where he was ordered to sit down.   His hands were tied behind the back of the chair.   A voice said: “Welcome to Paradise, here is neither a God nor a prophet, we are the ones who decide”.   He was interrogated about his connection to the PKK and stated that he was not a member of the PKK, but worked for a Kurdish cultural organisation which was legal in Denmark.   He added that had he been a member of the PKK, he would not have travelled to Turkey.   He was interrogated about his family and asked to give the names and professions of persons living in Copenhagen.   Subsequently, he was taken to another room and ordered to take off his clothes.   At first he refused to do so, but was then undressed by some other persons.   Standing naked, with his hands tied behind his back, he was suddenly and unexpectedly hit by a very cold and vigorous jet of water.   Very soon he lost his sense of time, but assumes that he was exposed to the jet of water for about 10-15 minutes.   Thereafter he was taken to another room where a very forceful jet of hot air was directed against his naked body.   He could hear a machine, probably a ventilator.   The heat affected his body in a very unpleasant way and at the end he got a feeling of his skin melting.   He was subsequently dressed and placed in another room for further interrogation.     Still blindfolded, Mr Koç heard various voices.   One of them said to him: “You are a good person, think of your wife and your shop, just say that you are a member of the PKK”.   He denied that and explained that he was a member of a Danish political party.   Shortly afterwards he was placed in another room and felt that he stepped on a soft, rubber-like mat.   A voice ordered him to stand still, after which he heard a slight whistling noise and was at the same time hit from behind and flung against something soft and rubber-like, which he thinks was a wall clad with rubber.   He fell a couple of times, was ordered to stand up, and the treatment was repeated.   Slowly he forgot time and got confused.   He cannot remember exactly how many times he was hit by the heavy object on his back and his neck.     Mr Koç was then returned to an interrogation room, and a voice said: “You must accept to be good, then we shall behave nicely”.   He answered that he would not accept any false statements.   He felt a metal object against his right temple, there was a click, as if a gun was triggered.   A voice said: “If you are wise, you will accept our accusations”.   He did not reply and felt again a metal-like object against his temple.   A voice said: “We give you one last chance; if you don’t accept that, you will be thrown out from a building, and your relatives will be told that you have committed suicide”.   One of the persons present said: “We will give you a set of headphones, and you are to repeat what is being said”.   Due to the situation he accepted to repeat what was said in the headphones.   He heard a slightly husky voice and repeated the statements.     Subsequently, he was asked why he did not have a double citizenship and why he had not done his military service in Turkey.   A voice calmed him by saying: “It is not serious, we shall release you”.     He was thereafter taken down a staircase with a guard at his side.   The guard asked him what he had done.   He did not reply, but said that he could not see.   The person let go of him, and shortly afterwards he felt a heavy kick that made him fall down the staircase, and he hit his right arm.   He was led around a basement and had a feeling of walking in a labyrinth before he came to a cell.   After some time in this cell, he was taken to a floor higher up in the building.   A voice ordered him to sign some papers, after which he would be released.   At first Mr Koç refused to sign the papers saying that he could not read them, but he was told that if he refused, he would undergo more interrogations.   He then signed the papers, about 10 sheets of paper.   When the cloth over his eyes was removed enough for him to sign, he saw on a police officer’s watch that the time was 6.30, and thereby estimated that around 12 hours had elapsed since his arrival at the police station.   During the whole course of interrogation he was blindfolded and had his hands tied behind his back.   He could hear sounds as if start buttons of tape recorders or video recorders were pushed and, he believes, that the interrogations were taped.     Back in his cell he received a visit by a tall, well-dressed person who said to him that he would be released the same day because he had done nothing illegal.   At the same time this person said to him that he would be offered substantial financial support.   In return, he should assist in giving information on Kurdish activists in Denmark.   He refused to accept the offer, but the person said to him that even a little information was of great importance to the Turkish State.   He suggested that they met in a café when Mr Koç had been released.   The person said that he represented the Turkish secret service.     After having had his fingerprints and photo taken, he was brought by car to a court building where at first he had to wait in a basement.   A doctor checked him and asked if he had been exposed to torture.   He refrained from telling about it.   The doctor issued a medical certificate which certified that the medical examination of Mr Koç revealed no traces of violence or force on his body.   Mr Koç met a representative from the Danish Embassy who asked him how he had been treated.   He said that he was feeling bad, and that the representative surely knew about the conditions in Turkey.   Thereafter, he was brought before the public prosecutor where he had his confession read out, upon which he was taken outside the room and waited for a few minutes.   A judge checked his identity following which he was told that he was to be remanded in custody and was subsequently taken to an ordinary prison.     The remand in custody lasted from 9 July until 15 August 1996.   He spent the first two days in the prison in a small cell measuring 6-8m 2 .   There were two other inmates and an open toilet in the cell, which smelt so horrible that he threw up when entering.   The food was inedible.   He had the impression that the other inmates were ordinary criminals.   They advised him to ask to be taken to a larger cell in the prison.   His wish was complied with and he was moved to a large cell with about 80 inmates.     Fifteen of the prisoners in the cell were on a hunger strike and while Mr Koç stayed there, one of them died.   On that occasion he noted that the prison guard did not open the door of the cell until five hours later for the corpse to be removed.   The food was edible, because the prisoners made it themselves.   The light was on day and night, and in the evening the inmates found some old rags to cover their eyes so that they could sleep.   The cell was constantly surveilled by soldiers with machine guns.   The bed linen was infested with vermin, and the prisoners’ skin was swollen after insect bites.   It was difficult to sleep at night, because some prisoners cried out for help, some of them in severe pain who, according to Mr   Koç’s impression, had also become mentally ill.   Following a court session on 15 August 1996 during which it was decided not to prolong the detention on remand of Mr Koç (see below) he was returned to the prison together with other prisoners.   A few hours later he was told that he would be released.   He was brought to the prison governor, and a civilian police officer came to fetch him.   At first the civilian police officer refused to sign a receipt for having fetched him, but when the governor insisted, the receipt was signed.   The civilian police officer took him out through a back door, while Mr Koç’s relatives and a representative from the Danish Embassy were waiting at the main entrance.   Two civilian police officers drove him out through a back entrance of the prison and drove around for about an hour in a part of the city which Mr Koç did not know.   On the way he heard them discuss that the press should not receive any information, and that they had a friend in the neighbourhood whom they might visit.   After some time the police officers were ordered back to the police headquarters via their walkie-talkie, and they returned to the parking lot in the basement where Mr Koç had been taken after his arrest.   He went up several stairs in the building, and as he saw signs in English, he assumed that this was the security department.   A police officer asked him again why he had not done his military service in Turkey.   After a while he was brought to a room with 15 other persons.   Nearly all of them were Turkish.   They told him that some of them had been there for 8 to 14 days, and that their relatives did not know where they were.     The next morning he was brought to another room, where his lawyer was present, informing him that he would leave for Denmark the same day.   He would be fetched by a car from the Embassy and driven to the airport.   However, 5 to 6 hours later he was told by an inspector that he would be sent to Denmark, and that the authorities would drive him to the airport.   At the same time, the inspector added that if he said negative things about Turkey, it would be dangerous for him.   Shortly afterwards, three civilian police officers drove him in a civilian car to the airport, where he had the possibility to talk briefly with his family, before he was taken to the plane.   The medical examinations and reports     Upon Mr Koç’s return to Denmark on 16 August 1996 the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, on 20 August 1996, contacted the Rehabilitation Research Centre for Torture Victims in Copenhagen (hereinafter called the RCT).   With the consent of Mr Koç he underwent an examination there.   From 20 August until 26 September 1996 he had six sessions with the chief psychiatrist.   Furthermore, he was examined by the RCT’s general practitioner and chief physiotherapist.   Subsequently, Mr Koç was referred for examination by the chief neurosurgeon at the State Hospital in Copenhagen.     The medical report of the RCT of 11 October 1996 reads as follows:   “Summary:   Today, when Kemal Koç recollects the interrogations and the imprisonment, there are especially three situations which he recalls as being extra frightening, because he felt he was in danger of his life:   1:      When he was threatened to be thrown out of a window in a tall building.   2:      When a pistol-like object was pressed against his temple. 3:      The hour after release, during which he was driven around in an unknown part of town, and when the two accompanying police officers talked about visiting a friend.   Moreover during the period of time from the release and until he was on the plane, he felt that anything might happen to him.   Kemal Koç’s present physical complaints:   After Kemal Koç returned to Denmark, he has had a number of mental as well as physical complaints.   Physical complaints:   He has suffered from a constant headache of the same intensity during the whole period of time.   For the same period of time he has had symptoms from the back and extremities, which were very pronounced immediately after the torture, but the symptoms diminished spontaneously with time.   Within the last two weeks prior to the examination, these symptoms have however become gradually worse again.   The symptoms are as follows:   1:      Constant pain in the back of the neck and back, which on both sides spreads out over his shoulders and further out along the back and outer side of the upper arm and forearm and diffusely down into all fingers.   The symptoms are mostly pronounced on the right side, and furthermore he has a pain in his right elbow which he relates to falling where he got a direct blow to the elbow in connection with the torture.   He has also a feeling of lesser and more diffuse strength in his arms than before, and sometimes things have slipped out of his hands.   2:      Constant pain in the back, from the small of the back down to the sacrum.   The pain is located near the midline and radiates down over both buttocks, along the back of the thighs to knee-level.   No pain from knee-level downwards.   3:      Constant headache, which increases in intensity during the day and is worse late afternoon/in the evening.   The headache may be accompanied by periodical dizziness and a feeling of insecurity, which, however, never resulted in his falling over.   Moreover, he has a constant murmuring noise in the middle of his head, which can be drowned when there are other noises around him.   Thus, he is mostly aware of it, when everything is quiet.   He has not noticed any hearing disability.   4:      Contrary to before, his eyes get tired when he is reading.   If he reads more than 3 to 4 pages, his eyes get irritated and suffused with tears, and he feels that he has to strain his eyes very much in order to [look fixedly at] the text. 5:      Limitations in daily functions: Before, he was able to manage his small shop by himself.   Now, he can no longer carry the boxes with beers and sodas and has therefore had to employ an assistant in the shop.   He can only stand up for a maximum of 15 minutes at a time, and he must lie down - which he does several times a day - because of a pain in his back and back of the head.   He has practically never used analgesics or any other kind of medicine, but has now to take Kodimagnyl tablets 3 to 4 times every day in order to keep the pain down.   Objective physical findings:   Chief Neurosurgeon [MJ], who on 27 September 1996 made a neurosurgical examination, [made] the following objective findings:   ‘General appearance: healthy and in accordance with his age.   He cooperates well when taking the anamnesis and during the objective examination.   He describes his symptoms in a reliable and subdued way.   Cranial nerves : Normal findings as regards visual field, mobility of the eyes, sensorial and motor function of the face.   Normal function of tongue and soft palate.   Speech normal, without dysartry.   Columna cervicalis : Slightly antroflect, forced posture of the head.   Flexion reduced with appr. 25%, provoking a tiring pain in the back of the neck.   Considerably reduced of bending backwards.   Rotation of the head is only reduced with slightly 1/3, which results in less pain than during flexion/extension.   Upon palpation there is soreness of the muscle insertions at the cranio-cervical border, at the insertion of the sternocleid on the mastoid, bilaterally of the paraspinal muscles, going out to the edges of the trapezius muscles.   Forced foramen compression-test is negative.   Upper extremities : Can barely get the arms vertically up above the head, because that accentuates the pain in the back of the neck.   There is a normal and symmetrical muscle-relief of both arms, and the muscle-tonus is equal and normal in both upper extremities.   Diminished force, symmetrically in both arms because of pain, but no pareses.   Deep reflexes weak and equal.   The patient states decreased tactile sense of the upper arm, the dorsal side of the forearm, the whole of the hand and in all five fingers on the right side.   The decreased tactile sense only relates to when touched, as there is normal thermal sense and vibration sense.   The deep reflexes are very weak, but equal on both sides.   The right elbow is found to be with a normal contour, with normal active and passive joint motility; however causing pain.   Columna thoracolumbalis : Normal curvatures in the saggital plane.   Motility in flexion reduced with about 50%, in accordance with distance fingers-floor only to the knees.   Bending backwards considerably reduced.   Rotation to both sides nearly to normal.   Palpatorical soreness to the erector spinae musculature on both sides.   Ordinary walking slightly impaired because of pain but otherwise normal.   Walking on heels and toes is not possible because of pain in the back and buttocks.   When examining the patient on the couch, he can lift his legs with the knees stretched until 10-15 degrees, but that causes pain in the lumbar-gluteal region.   Manipulation of the legs on the bent knees and hips also causes considerable pain.   A normal and symmetrical muscular relief is felt in both legs.   The patellar reflexes are weak, however equal on both sides.   The Achilles reflexes are normal and symmetrical.   The force of the muscles varies due to pain reaction from the back and buttocks.   However, full force can be demonstrated symmetrically for a short time, thus there are no pareses.   On the left side, the patient states decreased tactile sense on the outer side of the thigh, the inner and outer side of the leg and on most of the foot, except on the outer side of the edge of the foot.   X-ray examination of the cervical, thoracical and lumbar vertebral column and of the right elbow demonstrates no fractures or sequelae to any trauma.   Practically no changes due to spondylosis are found.’   Kemal Koç’s present psychological complaints:   At the first conversation on 20 August 1996, Kemal Koç’s wife described how she found that her husband had changed mentally: he talks more slowly than before, and furthermore he sleeps poorly at night.   Kemal Koç states himself the following mental complaints, which have remained unchanged during the period of examination:   1:      Forgetfulness, the result of which is that he has to work more slowly in his shop.   Thus, contrary to before, he can no longer remember more than one thing at a time, and therefore has to serve the customers more slowly.   2:      He suffers from nightmares every night, in which he dreams that he is being suffocated.   After such nightmares he wakes up bathed in sweat and sometimes screaming.   When he falls asleep again, he has a nightmare again, during which he thinks that he is not going to survive.   He therefore has a poorer sleep than before, and he does not feel rested when the following day starts.   3:      Reduced ability to concentrate which influences his ability to carry out daily functions.   Moreover, he is not able to read papers to the same extent as he did before.   4:      He thinks and talks more slowly than before, and now often has to search for Danish words, despite the fact that he has lived in Denmark for 24 years and has spoken Danish very well, and even during a period of time been a teacher of the Danish language.   5:      He gets very tired very quickly and can therefore only manage to work less and has to rest frequently. 6:      Kemal Koç says that he has a changed personality.   The greatest change is that he frequently, i.e. at least once a day, is disturbed by reviving torture episodes.   He especially has frequent re-activations of the moments during which he thought that he would not get out of the prison alive.   This is especially the case with the situation, in which he was threatened to be thrown out of a window, and then to have a pistol-like object against his temple, and furthermore the hour after his release when he was driven around an unknown area of the town and was frightened of being killed.   He moreover suffers from a feeling of not being able to manage things.   He is also afraid of the threats the Turkish police made to him if he told anybody about what had happened, that these threats should be carried out.   Furthermore, he feels that he does not function so well in the family as he did before, among other things he does not feel like talking with the family members about every day events.   Objective psychological examination, performed by the signee:   Kemal Koç does not present any signs of mental illness.   He dresses normally, has normal body weight and seems well-trained, but has a slightly stooping posture.   He seems to have normal intellect and is subdued, but yet shocked by the things he has been exposed to and by the things the co-prisoners described about the treatment they had had by the Turkish police when in custody.   It is evident that he has to concentrate a lot to remember the events, and in between he has to search for words which he remembered easily before.   Conclusion:   Kemal Koç’s description of what happened during the imprisonment and the interrogations has been constant from one conversation to the next, and there has not been any contradictory information.   His description of the physical and psychological torture methods he has been exposed to and the objective physical and psychological findings are in accordance.   His mental and physical sequelae after torture are totally in accordance with the torture sequelae described in the literature and with the sequelae found in other clients at the Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims who have been exposed to similar assaults.   I am therefore able to state with great certainty that he has been exposed to physical and mental torture while in the custody of the Turkish police.   After the examination, Kemal Koç now receives treatment at the Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims.   [BR] Chief Psychiatrist”.   The neurosurgical medical statement of 23 October 1996 from Chief Neurosurgeon MJ of the State Hospital in Copenhagen reads as follows:   “Upon request by the Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims (RCT) I hereby forward a neurosurgical medical statement for the above-mentioned in order to evaluate the extent of the sequelae after imprisonment and torture in July/August   1996.   I know Kemal Koç (KK) from the medical examination performed at the out ‑ patient neurosurgical clinic at Rigshospitalet on 27 September 1996 at which KK was examined with a view to the neurosurgical and conservative treatment possibilities of his condition.   At the examination I found pain in the musculature and joint structures in the back of the neck and shoulders, right elbow and lumbar region and buttocks, resulting in reduction of motility and impaired functioning.   There were no signs of damage of the central nervous system, nerve roots or peripheral nerves.   His condition could therefore not be relieved by any neurosurgical treatment, and conservative treatment was recommended.   A specific evaluation has now been requested of the connection between the torture exposure described, KK’s symptoms and the objective findings at the neurosurgical examination.   The torture exposure has been described in detail elsewhere in the case.   In summary, the torture exposure comprises the following categories:   1:      Thermal exposure to both cold and heat.   2:      Mechanical affect of the vertebral column, especially focused to the back of the neck and small of the back with acceleration/deceleration components in the form of repeated beatings, kicks, forced falling and being flung around by heavy objects, especially directed against the cervical and lumbar part of the vertebral column.   A fall episode caused direct traumatisation of the right elbow in the form of twisting/blow.   3:      Forced, severe deterioration of general life conditions during imprisonment in the form of being locked up in cramped surroundings, insufficient and inedible food, reduced possibility to sleep and rest, including exposure to electrical light day and night, and severely deteriorated general hygienic conditions.   4:      Psychological torture, both direct threats and mock execution in the form of mental sequelae to the somatic torture described.   At the neurosurgical examination of KK on 27 September 1996 the symptoms and the objective findings were consistent with a syndrome of muscular and joint overloading, by far related to the axial part of the locomotor apparatus around the cervical vertebral column and the lumbar and gluteal regions.   The symptoms and the findings are consistent with the mechanical acceleration/deceleration affects focused against the vertebral column described in the above point 2.   I have not found any competitive reasons for his condition except the torture described. I have not at the examination been able to find somatical sequelae to the thermal torture and deteriorated general conditions described (points 1 and 3).   The evaluation of the mental sequelae after the torture described lies outside my expert field.   [MJ] Chief neurosurgeon Dept. of neurosurgery Rigshospitalet ”.     On 13 November 1996 the Danish authorities sent a copy of the RCT report to the Turkish authorities with a request for a reaction thereto.   On 20 December 1996 the Turkish authorities expressed doubts as to the conclusions drawn and referred to two medical opinions obtained for the purpose from the Numune Hospital.   The opinions, of 28   November 1996, read as follows:   (Translation)   “Office of the Chief Physician Numune Hospital Ankara     Your letter dated 26 November 1996, No. 5390 enclosing the letter of External Relations Department of the Ministry of Health dated 15 November 1996, No. UK/15A/4737 and its annexes have been examined.   My comments are resumed as follows:   1:                        In the report of the Forensic Medical Institute dated 9 July 1996 with ref. no.   A ‑ 9713, it is acknowledged that the medical examination of Kemal Koç revealed no traces of violence or force externally applied to his body.   2:                        It is understood that in the medical examination performed between the dates of 20 August and 26 September 1996 by the Rehabilitation and Research Center for Torture Victims, the physical complaints between the said dates were headache and a pain in the back and extremities diminishing spontaneously with time.   The symptoms found were:   -   pain in the back of the neck spreading over to the back and further to the forearm and upper arm to diffuse into fingers, particularly intense on the right side; weakness in the arms; -   pain in the back that spreads from back to the sacrum; -   headache that worsens towards the evening; -   exhaustion in the eyes; -   limitations to daily functions.   3:                        No fractures or sequelae of torture were spotted in the cervical, thoracical and lumbar area in the x-ray examination. 4:      In the psychological examination performed, subjective findings have been discovered entirely based on the patient’s statements such as forgetfulness, nightmares and hence a poorer sleep and rest, difficulty in concentration, decelerated talking and thinking ability, quick exhaustion, diminished performance and fears related to threats.   In this examination no findings have been stated, to lead to a diagnosis of a psychological illness to develop as a result of a trauma (post-traumatic stress disorder) such as a behavioural disorder, if there are any, or the psychological state of the patient (depressed or anxious).   The symptoms detected in this patient may also be some depressive complaints (with considerable possibility that the life time probability for the occurrence of such symptoms is 20-30%, with a peak average of 13-20%) which may occur due to some important events in his life (i.e. a loss of brother, wife and parents or job or a divorce).   It is not possible to prove that these symptoms, based on subjective complaints of the patient, occurred directly due to alleged exposure to torture.   It is also another important finding that as a result of the objective psychological examination no psychological disorder was found in the patient other than the said symptoms.   I conclude that all these symptoms based on the statements of the patient are non ‑ specific and do not prove that they were caused by a physical and mental torture.   For your information, Sincerely,   Assoc. Prof. Dr. [ND] Psychiatry Clinic”.   “R E P O R T     It is understood from your letter and its enclosure that Mr Kemal Koç, a Danish citizen of Turkish origin, was held in custody by police in Turkey between the dates of 8 July 1996 and 15 August 1996, and was examined by Dr MJ on 27   September   1996, after returning to his country.   There are no objective findings to suggest a neurotrauma neither radiologically nor clinically.   Also, the examination by Dr J on 23 October 1996 reaffirmed that no findings have been detected to necessitate a neurosurgical treatment.   It is understood that the examination by Dr J was performed 43 days   later.   Sincerely,     Assoc. Prof. Dr [MFE] Assistant Chief of Neurosurgical Clinic”.     Having regard to the above the Turkish authorities found it appropriate to await the outcome of the trial against Mr Koç.   It was furthermore suggested that Mr Koç could address himself to the public prosecutor in Ankara. The criminal proceedings against Mr Ko ç     In a formal indictment presented by the public prosecutor on 11 July 1996, i.e. while Mr Koç was still detained on remand in Turkey, he was charged before the State Security Court of Ankara with giving assistance to members of the PKK contrary to Section 169 of the Turkish Criminal Code which reads as follows:   (Translation)   “Whoever, in circumstances other than prescribed in Sections 64 and 65, knowingly gives shelter, assistance, provisions, arms or ammunition to such society or band, or facilitates their actions, shall be punished with heavy imprisonment for three to five years.”     Mr Koç was accused of having donated more than 16,000 DKK to the PKK and of having attended PKK meetings in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, thereby assisting the PKK organisation.     On 15 August a court session was held in the State Security Court of Ankara.   Mr   Koç was present and assisted by counsel.   He was asked to present his views on the charges made.   He denied having made donations to the PKK or having participated in the PKK meetings in Germany or the Netherlands.   He maintained furthermore that he had only participated in cultural events in Denmark arranged by legally established Kurdish cultural associations.   As regards the police interrogations the court transcript contains the following:   (Translation)   “... Due to my brother’s death I tried to enter Turkey.   At the Esenboğa airport I was told that the computer indicated that I was wanted and therefore I was detained and later interrogated.   I was blindfolded and they asked me various questions.   As I was under psychological pressure I answered these questions along the lines they wanted me to answer.   Afterwards, I signed what they had taken down, again blindfolded.   For this reason I reject the testimony I gave to the police.   I have not committed any of the crimes I am accused of.   I request my acquittal.   ...   Counsel for the defence wanted added to the records that during the interrogation by the police his client was told that he had done nothing important and that he was told that he would be released.   With this in mind he was relaxed when he came to the State Security Court.   The defendant had also informed counsel that he thought that if he objected he would not be released.   The preliminary testimony taken by the police was read out to the defendant.   The defendant said that he signed the papers blindfolded thinking they were the ones for his release.   It is not a statement made voluntarily. The testimony taken in the presence of the public prosecutor was read out to the defendant.   The defendant said that he also rejected this testimony as he was not asked any questions, he was merely made to sign.   The testimony taken in the presence of the substitute judge of the State Security Court was read out to the defendant.   The defendant said that the substitute judge only checked his identity and did not ask any questions.   Therefore he does not accept that testimony either.   ...   Counsel for the defence stated that with reference to Section 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure his client was not interrogated in accordance with international law.   Furthermore, the interrogation did not rest on the facts.   He was made to believe that he would be released and with this in mind he was made to sign the prepared document, the same testimony was repeated in the presence of the public prosecutor and the judge.   However, nothing was founded on concrete evidence.   It was evident that the reason for his coming to Turkey was the death of his brother and not the participation in the work of an association.   Verification of the crime his client was accused of was impossible.   It was highly probable that he would be acquitted.   For this reason he requested that the defendant be released.   The prosecution stated on the basis of the nature of the crime and the available evidence, the defendant should be kept under arrest.   The Court gave the following decision.   DECISION:   It was decided unanimously that   1.     through the Ministry of Justice, it should be inquired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs whether or not the Kurdish Cultural Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, to which the defendant Kemal Koç is affiliated, is a legal association;   2.     as the defendant Kemal Koç has stated that he took part in the Kurdish National Assembly in Germany in 1992 as a delegate, it should be determined whether this is true or not, the information and documents, if available, particularly from the point of view of the defendant’s participation at the meeting, should be requested from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Ministry of Justice;   3.     taking into consideration the nature of the crime of which the defendant Kemal   Koç is accused and considering the possibility of the changes that may take place in the evidence, and provided that the defendant is not convicted or arrested for another crime, he should be released promptly; and a letter to this effect should be sent to the Prosecution of the State Security Court;   (For this item only Judge Captain Tanju Güvendiren has expressed his opposition.)   4.     for these reasons, and taking into consideration the letters to be written and for their replies, the case was adjourned until 19 September 1996, at 11:00.”     As set out above Mr Koç returned to Denmark on 16 August 1996.   In the criminal case against him further court sessions were held, in his absence, on 19   September, 22 October, 28 November and 19 December 1996.   The trial was on each occasion adjourned, primarily to allow the Turkish authorities to conduct certain investigations.   By judgment of 12 June 1997 the State Security Court of Ankara found the applicant guilty of the charges brought against him and sentenced him to 4½ years’ imprisonment.   The judgment reads, inter alia , as follows.   (Translation)   “It transpires from the record of incident (in Dz. 8) that the defendant Kemal KOÇ was one of the passengers on a Turkish Airlines flight to Ankara on 06.07.1996 and that when he went through passport control on arrival it was found that the Prosecution Department of the Ankara State Security Court had issued an apprehension order, whereupon he was detained.   The following transpires on examination of the text contained in the file (Dz.   170 ‑ 177) entitled ‘Kurdistan Report’ of January 1993, which was endorsed in Copenhagen on 19.03.1997 and is certified as being a faithful translation of the English version of an interview published in the magazine ‘ Kurdistan Rapport ’ (Dz. 178-179) (this document was forwarded at the request of our court by the Consulate of the Copenhagen Embassy and is certified by the 3rd clerk as being a true copy of the original along with the certified photocopy of the Danish original and the certified English translation, also in the files of the Embassy in Copenhagen).   The article in the magazine relates to an interview held with two representatives who were elected in the elections for the Kurdish National Parliament and covered an interview with two of the three candidates, elected to the Kurdish National Parliament - persons by the name of Kemal and Akif. It is explained in the article that there had been a total of seven candidates standing for election in Denmark and that Zeynel ÇELİK and Akif BAŞARAN were two of the three Kurdish representatives elected in Denmark in addition to Kemal KOÇ, and it transpires in the article reporting on an interview with Kemal KOÇ that he said that in the course of 1984 he had fought for independence in the PKK’s Eruh and Şemdinli raids as the result of which the national awareness of the people was aroused and developed; he said the PKK used very fair methods in its work with the people: whenever they planned attacks they used good tactics and told the people that if they supported them they would be able to fight the enemy successfully; but the Kurdish people were paying dearly for that fight - winning independence was a costly business. He stated further that the elections for the Kurdish National Parliament would make the enemy take the issue seriously and would demonstrate the importance the Kurds attached to their own standards. And he went on to say that with the establishment of the Kurdish National Parliament there would be a change to a democratic society. In reply to a further question he said that there was no difference between the PKK and the national parliament. The fact that PKK developments had become more focused had prepared the way for the establishment of a parliament of the Kurdish people of that nature; the national parliament was formed on a broad base and was not against the PKK, but an independent and free Kurdistan was open to everyone and to all Kurds who embraced that idea.   He stated openly that the task of the national parliament was to lay down a constitution and carry out diplomatic activities and that it was the supreme body of the Kurdish people. He described the role of the PKK in what he called the war for the independence of the Kurdish people as well as the organisation’s connection with the national parliament.   He concluded the interview with the statement that the national parliament was open to everyone who wanted a free Kurdistan and to all Kurds who advocated that idea.   As for the ERNK’s activities, he said that the armed forces would be placed under the national parliament.   Although, ... counsel for the defence have submitted in connection with this document, which has been added to the case file, that this press interview has nothing to do with the case or the imputed a