CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 avril 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8DD3F840 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDF389E35 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6AA809D4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1B6AF0FA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAE75D031 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46C37B92 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s453B1FB7 { width:53.61pt; display:inline-block } .s7E362E6E { width:209.32pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION     CASE OF UÇAR v. TURKEY     (Application no. 52392/99)     JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   11 April 2006       FINAL     11/07/2006       This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Uçar v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 4 January 2005 and 21 March 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 52392/99) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Seydo Uçar (“the applicant”), on 4 November 1999. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr M. Muller, Mr T. Otty, Mrs   L.K.N. Claridge, Mr K. Yıldız and, until 2002, by Mr   P.   Leach, lawyers attached to the Kurdish Human Rights Project (“KHRP”) in London, and by Mr İ. Sağlam and Mr Ş. Ülek, lawyers practising in Turkey. The Turkish Government (“the   Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. 3.     The applicant alleged that his son had been abducted and ill-treated by State agents or persons who had acted with the support, knowledge or acquiescence of the authorities, for twenty-eight days before he was handed over to the police in Diyarbakır. He contended that his son had been kept in police custody for nine days without being brought before a judge and without having access to his family and a lawyer, prior to his transfer to Diyarbakır E-type prison, where he died. The applicant maintained that regardless of whether his son had been killed in prison or committed suicide, the authorities were responsible for his death since they had not taken precautions to safeguard his right to life. 4.     The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. 5.     On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Second Section (Rule 52 § 1). 6.     By a decision of 4 January 2005, the Court declared the application admissible. 7.     The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 8.     The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Gaziantep. The application concerns the alleged abduction and ill-treatment of Cemal Uçar, the applicant’s son, by unknown persons and his death in Diyarbakır E-type prison. At the time of the events giving rise to the application, Cemal Uçar was 26 years old. The facts surrounding the detention and death of the applicant’s son are disputed between the parties. A.     The alleged abduction of Cemal Uçar 1.     Facts as presented by the applicant 9.     On 5 October 1999 at around 11 a.m. Cemal Uçar left his house to buy water. Four plain-clothes persons carrying weapons and radios attempted to abduct him. Cemal Uçar tried to run away. However, he was caught behind his house. These persons told him that they were policemen. He was then blindfolded and put in a vehicle. The applicant claims that a neighbour witnessed the abduction. According to this witness, Cemal Uçar resisted arrest but was dragged into a dark red car. After being driven around for some time Cemal Uçar was taken to an unknown location. 10.     Between 11 and 26 October 1999, the applicant filed petitions with the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and the Diyarbakır public prosecutor. He requested that the authorities carry out an investigation into the abduction of Cemal Uçar and that he be informed of his son’s whereabouts. 11.     Between 5 October and 2 November 1999 Cemal Uçar was detained by the kidnappers. He was kept blindfolded, deprived of food and was subjected to electric shocks. 12.     On 2 November 1999 the kidnappers took Cemal Uçar to the city stadium in Diyarbakır and left him outside. A balaclava was put over his head and he was made to lie on the ground. The kidnappers told him that they would send the police shortly. 2.     Facts as presented by the Government 13.     On 11 October 1999, after having received the applicant’s petition, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor requested the security directorate to examine the allegations. He took statements from the applicant concerning the alleged abduction of Cemal Uçar. 14.     On 22 November 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor sent letters to the public prosecutor’s office in Nusaybin, the Security Directorate, the Gendarme Command and the Population Office in Diyarbakır, requesting these offices to conduct an investigation. 15.     On 26 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate reported to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that Cemal Uçar had been taken into police custody on 2 November 1999 by police officers from the Diyarbakır Anti ‑ Terror Branch and that on 10 November 1999 his detention on remand had been ordered after he had been brought before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 16.     On 29 November 1999 the deputy chief of police in Diyarbakır notified the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that on 24 November 1999 Cemal Uçar had committed suicide in Diyarbakır E-type prison. 17.     On 10 December 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute in respect of the applicant’s allegations. 18.     On 23 December 1999 the decision of 10 December 1999 was served on the applicant. B.     The detention of Cemal Uçar in police custody 1.     Facts as presented by the applicant 19.     On 2 November 1999, at 3.30 a.m., within 3 to 5 minutes after the kidnappers had left, police arrived at the stadium and arrested Cemal Uçar. The police officers found a forged identity card in Cemal Uçar’s pocket. It had been placed there by his kidnappers. He was then taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital and examined by a doctor who noted that there were several injuries on various parts of his body. 20.     On 10 November 1999 Cemal Uçar was forced by the police to sign a statement, according to which he had been responsible for the organisation of Hizbullah activities in Diyarbakır. 21.     On 11 November 1999 Cemal Uçar, along with nine other persons, was taken to a medical expert who noted that none of the ten persons had sustained any injuries. 22.     On the same day, Cemal Uçar made statements before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and denied the truth of the statements taken from him on 10   November 1999 by the police. Subsequently, he was taken to the Diyarbakır State Security Court before which he repeated the statements that he had made to the public prosecutor. The court ordered his detention on remand. 2.     Facts as presented by the Government 23.     On 2 November 1999, at around 3.15 a.m., in the course of a routine police check, Cemal Uçar was seen sitting in front of the city stadium. As he appeared suspicious, the police officers asked him to show them his identity card. A   forged identity card was seized and Cemal Uçar was taken into custody. 24.     On 4 November 1999 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court extended Cemal Uçar’s custody period for two days. On 6   November 1999 the period was extended for a further six days by the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 25.     In his statement to the police dated 10 November 1999, Cemal Uçar acknowledged his involvement in Hizbullah activities in Diyarbakır. 26.     On 11 November 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered his detention on remand. Cemal Uçar was then transferred to Diyarbakır E ‑ type prison. C.     The alleged solitary confinement and suicide of Cemal Uçar in prison 1.     Facts as presented by the applicant 27.     After being transferred to Diyarbakır E-type prison, the applicant was placed in a cell where he remained for eleven days. 28.     On 24 November 1999 Cemal Uçar died in Diyarbakır E-type prison. 29.     In a letter dated 27 September 2000, the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that the applicant believed that police officers had killed his son. In their submissions of 15 September 2005, the representatives claimed that Cemal Uçar could have been killed by other inmates of the ward where Cemal Uçar had been detained. 2.     Facts as presented by the Government 30.     On 24 November 1999 during the regular morning inspection, at around 8.15   a.m., Cemal Uçar was discovered by prison officers hanging from a bunk bed by a belt in ward no. 1 in Diyarbakır E-type prison. The prison officers called the prison doctor who established that Cemal Uçar was dead. They drafted a report immediately after the incident which stated that Cemal Uçar had been hung by a belt. They then informed the prison director and his deputy. 31.     On the same day, at 9.30 a.m., the public prosecutor, the prison director, his deputy and one prison officer prepared a further report describing the ward in which the applicant’s son had died. 32.     At 11.30 a.m. a further report was drafted by technical police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. 33.     Subsequently, an autopsy was carried out on the deceased. According to the autopsy report, no indication of ill-treatment, such as scars or bruises, was identified on the corpse. The report revealed that the cause of death was mechanical asphyxia resulting from suspension. 34.     On the same day, statements were taken from the three prison officers who had found the body of Cemal Uçar and from the two other inmates of the ward in which Cemal Uçar had been found dead. 35.     On 2 December 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute, finding that Cemal Uçar had committed suicide and that there was no offence to prosecute. 36.     On the same day, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court issued an additional decision not to prosecute in respect of the charges against Cemal Uçar, given the latter’s demise. D.     The documents submitted by the parties 37.     The parties submitted various documents with a view to substantiating their claims. These documents, in so far as they are relevant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The documents submitted by the Government 38.     The following information is disclosed in the documents submitted by the Government. (a)     Statement of the applicant taken by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor on 11   October 1999 39.     The applicant maintained before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that his son had been abducted, that he did not know whether the persons who had abducted his son had been police officers and that he feared for his son’s life. (b)     Letter dated 11 October 1999 from the Diyarbakır public prosecutor to the Diyarbakır Security Directorate 40.     The Diyarbakır public prosecutor informed the security directorate of the alleged abduction of Cemal Uçar and requested that an investigation be conducted into his disappearance. (c)     Letters dated   22   November 1999 from the Diyarbakır public prosecutor to the Nusaybin public   prosecutor, the Diyarbakır Security Directorate, the Diyarbakır   Gendarmerie Command and the Nusaybin Population Office 41.     On 22 November 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor sent letters to the public prosecutor’s office in Nusaybin, the Security Directorate, the Gendarme Command and the Population Office in Diyarbakır, requesting these offices to conduct an investigation and transmit certain information regarding Cemal Uçar. (d)     Letters dated 26 and 29 November 1999 from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor 42.     On 26 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate reported to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that Cemal Uçar had been taken into police custody on 2   November 1999 by police officers from the Diyarbakır Anti ‑ Terror Branch, and that on 10 November 1999 his detention on remand had been ordered after he had been brought before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 43.     By a further letter dated 29 November 1999, the deputy chief of police in Diyarbakır notified the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that on 24   November   1999 Cemal Uçar had committed suicide in Diyarbakır E ‑ type prison. (e)     Decision taken on 10 December 1999 not to prosecute 44.     On 10 December 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute in respect of the applicant’s allegations, finding that Cemal Uçar had been taken into police custody and, consequently, no offence had been committed or offender sought. On 23 December 1999 the decision of 10 December 1999 was served on the applicant. (f)     Statement of Cemal Uçar taken by police on 10 November 1999 45.     In his statement to the police dated 10 November 1999, Cemal Uçar acknowledged his involvement in Hizbullah activities in Diyarbakır. (g)     Medical reports dated 2 and 11 November 1999 46.     On 2 November 1999, following his arrest, Cemal Uçar was taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital and examined by a doctor who noted the following: “An abrasion on the nose, scars on the right wrist, right hand and left foot, an oedema on the right foot and injuries to various parts of the body have been identified...” 47.     On 11 November 1999 Cemal Uçar, along with nine other persons, was taken to a medical expert in a health clinic in Diyarbakır who noted that none of the ten persons had sustained any injuries. (h)     Petition dated 11 November 1999 by Cemal Uçar addressed to the directorate of Diyarbakır E ‑ type prison 48.     On 11 November 1999 Cemal Uçar requested to be placed in the same prison ward as the other persons who were charged with membership of the Hizbullah. (i)     Reports dated 24   November 1999, drawn up by prison officers in Diyarbakır E-type prison 49.     According to two reports drawn up by prison officers, on 24   November   1999, during the regular morning inspection at around 8.15   a.m., Cemal Uçar was discovered by prison officers hanging from a bunk bed by means of a belt. The prison officers called the prison doctor who established that Cemal Uçar was dead. They then informed the prison director and his deputy. (j)     On-site inspection report, dated 24 November 1999 50.     On 24 November 1999, at 9.30 a.m., the public prosecutor, the prison director, his deputy and a prison officer prepared a further report describing the ward in which the applicant’s son had died. According to this second report, there were six bunk beds in the 36 m² ward where Cemal Uçar was kept. One of these six beds was turned upright so that it could be used as a wardrobe. The deceased was hanging from the upright bunk bed by a blue belt. There were two pillows, a bottle of water and two glasses placed under his feet. There was no sign of a struggle in the ward, such as broken objects or traces of blood. (k)     Scene of incident report, sketch plan, photographs and a film of the scene of the incident, dated 24 November 1999 51.     At 11.30 a.m. a report was drafted by technical police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. They established that Cemal Uçar had committed suicide by hanging himself from a bunk bed, positioned vertically, by means of a black belt. They took photographs of the scene of the incident, drew a plan and filmed the ward with a video camera. (l)     Body examination and autopsy report, dated 24 November 1999 52.     An autopsy was carried out on the deceased at Diyarbakır State Hospital by Dr Lokman Eğilmez, the director of the Diyarbakır Forensic Medical Branch Office. According to the examination of the body and autopsy report, no indication of ill-treatment, such as scars or bruises, was identified on the corpse. At the end of the examination, Dr Lokman Eğilmez concluded that the cause of death was mechanical asphyxia resulting from suspension. (m)     Statements, dated 24   November 1999 and taken by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, of three prison officers, H.M., A.T., and M.Y.S., as well as two inmates of the ward, S.K. and E.F., where Cemal Uçar was found dead 53.     According to the documents submitted to the Court, the prison officers testified that Cemal Uçar had taken breakfast at around 6.45 a.m. and that at around 8.15 a.m. they had found him dead during the inspection of the ward. One of the officers stated that the other inmates were asleep when they arrived at the scene of incident. The officers stated that they then informed the prison authorities. The two inmates stated that they had been woken up at around 8 a.m. by a noise in the ward and had found that Cemal Uçar had hung himself and that prison officers had been in the ward. They both testified that Cemal Uçar had been depressed and had talked about killing himself prior to his death. They affirmed that Cemal Uçar had talked about his previous suicide attempts during his detention in police custody. (n)     Decisions dated 2   December 1999 not to prosecute issued by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court 54.     On 2 December 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute, finding that Cemal Uçar had committed suicide and that there was no offence to prosecute. 55.     On the same day, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court issued an additional non-prosecution decision in respect of the charges against Cemal Uçar, given the latter’ demise. 2.     The documents submitted by the applicant 56.     The following information appears from documents submitted by the applicant. (a)     The applicant’s petitions submitted to the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and the Diyarbakır public prosecutor 57.     In his petition dated 11 October 1999 addressed to the public prosecutor at the State Security Court, the applicant submitted that his son had been arrested by persons claiming to be police officers. He requested the authorities to inform him whether his son had been taken into police custody. On the same day, after having been notified that Cemal Uçar had not been taken into police custody, the applicant lodged a further petition with the public prosecutor’s office in Diyarbakır, requesting the authorities to ascertain the whereabouts of his son. 58.     In his second petition dated 26 October 1999, addressed to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, the applicant repeated his allegation concerning his son’s abduction. The applicant further stated that two plain-clothes police officers had gone to his son’s house two days after the abduction and that, on the same day, a plain-clothes police officer had gone to his house, searching for his son. The applicant contended that he had been unable to obtain information about his son from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. He requested the public prosecutor’s office to ascertain his son’s whereabouts. (b)     Letter dated 2 November 1999 from the head of the Organisation for Human Rights and Solidarity for Oppressed People (Mazlum-Der), Mr   Yılmaz   Ensaroğlu, to the Ministry of the Interior 59.     In his letter, Mr Ensaroğlu informed the Minister of the Interior of the disappearance of Cemal Uçar and requested that an investigation be conducted. (c)     Statements made on 11   October 1999 by Cemal Uçar before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and the Diyarbakır State Security Court 60.     In his statements to the public prosecutor, Cemal Uçar claimed that he had been kidnapped and taken somewhere close to the Diyarbakır prison. There he had been tortured by the kidnappers, who said they were working for Mahmut Yıldırım, an individual also known as “ Yeşil ”, who carried out unlawful acts in the south-east in the 1990s and whose activities were allegedly known to the police and the Turkish intelligence service. He denied the truth of the statements taken from him by the police. He maintained that he had been forced to sign them. 61.     In his statements before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, Cemal Uçar repeated the statements that he had made to the public prosecutor. (d)     Report dated 2 November 1999 of house search and seizure 62.     According to the report drafted at 5.45 a.m. on 2 November 1999 about the search conducted in Cemal Uçar’s house, the house was searched in the course of a police operation carried out against the Hizbullah and seven books were found. This report was signed by eight police officers and Cemal Uçar. (e)     Statement by Mr İ. Sağlam concerning the abduction and death of Cemal Uçar 63.     Mr İ. Sağlam stated that Cemal Uçar sent a letter to his family, informing them that he had been taken into police custody and, subsequently, detained in Diyarbakır E-type prison. After having received the letter, the applicant went to the prison and saw his son. Subsequently, he asked Mr   İ. Sağlam to visit his son. On an unspecified date, Mr İ. Sağlam visited Cemal Uçar, who maintained that he had been kidnapped by security forces and that he had made statements before the public prosecutor about his abduction. Cemal Uçar refrained from informing the public prosecutor about the place where had been kept for almost a month as he feared for himself and his family. Mr İ. Sağlam further stated that he did not have the impression that Cemal Uçar was disturbed psychologically. However, he had feared the possibility of being taken to the security directorate again. (f)     Expert reports dated 30 August 2005 of Dr A.M. Anscombe 64.     Two reports were prepared on behalf of the applicant by Dr   A.M.   Anscombe, a consultant forensic pathologist practising in the United Kingdom. The applicant instructed Mr Anscombe to review the autopsy report on Cemal Uçar, the police reports on the inspection and verification of the scene of the incident, the plan of the ward, the video and photocopies of photographs of the scene, with the deceased in situ, and to comment on the adequacy of the autopsy examination. 65.     In his reports Dr Anscombe maintained that his main criticism was the absence of autopsy photographs. He stated that autopsy photographs were a standard part of any forensic post-mortem examination since without photographs, one was reliant upon the description by the pathologist and there was no other means of corroborating what the pathologist had found or described. He further maintained that the autopsy report would be considered to be inadequate in the United Kingdom because of its brevity and lack of detail. As regards the cause of death of Cemal Uçar, Dr   Anscombe stated that there was nothing in the disposition of the body, the manner of dress, and disposition of the scene which raised suspicion of anything other than suicide. He however opined that it was possible that the deceased could have been suspended by another person or persons, the assessment of which likelihood in turn rested on the accuracy and reliability of the autopsy report. He concluded that that was why an adequate autopsy description with documentation, including photographs, was so important. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 66.     At the time of the events, Turkish law did not contain any provision regulating communications between persons held in custody and their relatives. On 6 February 2002 the third paragraph of Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended by Law no. 4744 and currently reads as follows: “When a person is arrested, following the public prosecutor’s decision, a family member or another person designated by the arrested person shall be promptly informed of the arrest or the prolongation of the custody period.” 67.     A description of the other relevant domestic law at the material time may be found in the judgments of Tekdağ v. Turkey (no. 27699/95, §§   40 ‑ 51, 15 January 2004), and Akdoğdu v. Turkey (no. 46747/99, §§ 28 and 29, 18 October 2005). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 68.     The applicant alleged that the death of Cemal Uçar in Diyarbakır E ‑ type prison gave rise to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. He further contended that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into his death. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows: “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” A.     Submissions of the parties 1.     The applicant 69.     The applicant maintained that the State was responsible for Cemal Uçar’s death in prison since they could not provide a plausible explanation for it. According to the applicant, his son was either killed by the State authorities or by the inmates of the prison ward where he had been incarcerated. He maintained in this connection that his son should not have been placed in the same ward as the other persons who had been accused of membership of the Hizbullah. The applicant further submitted that, if his son had indeed committed suicide, then the authorities should be considered liable for his death since they had failed to safeguard his son’s right to life. 70.     The applicant further alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the death of Cemal Uçar in Diyarbakır E-type prison. In particular, the autopsy carried out on the body of Cemal Uçar was far from adequate. In this connection, the applicant maintained that the Court had found other autopsies and medical examinations conducted by the medical expert in question to be inadequate in its judgments of İkincisoy v. Turkey (no. 26144/95, § 79, 27 July 2004), Elci   and Others v. Turkey (nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, §   642, 13   November 2003), and Kişmir v. Turkey (no. 27306/95, §   85, 31   May 2005). Furthermore, no photographs of the body were taken and there was no impartial observer present, independent of the authorities, during the autopsy. The applicant also maintained that the public prosecutor who had conducted the investigation had not given appropriate consideration to alternative causes of death. The investigation was too brief and limited in scope. 2.     The Government 71.     The Government denied the factual basis of the applicant’s allegation that his son had been killed while in prison. They further submitted that the investigation carried out by the security directorate and the public prosecutor’s office in Diyarbakır into his death had revealed that Cemal Uçar had committed suicide. They maintained that the authorities had not been and could not have been aware of the psychological problems of Cemal Uçar, especially because he had committed suicide only fifteen days after he was placed in Diyarbakır E ‑ type prison. The Government finally submitted that the domestic authorities fulfilled their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the death of Cemal Uçar. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     The death of the applicant’s son a.     The alleged intentional killing 72.     The Court reiterates that Article 2 of the Convention, which safeguards the right to life, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention and, together with Article 3 of the Convention, enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV). In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article   2 of the Convention, the Court must subject the complaints concerning the right to life to the most careful scrutiny (see Akdoğdu, cited above, § 36). 73.   The Court will examine the issues that arise in the light of the documentary evidence put forward in the present case, as well as the parties’ written observations. 74.     The Court recalls that, in assessing evidence, it adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §   264, 18 June 2002). Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 18   January 1978, Series   A   no.   25, p. 65, § 161, and Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey , no. 27602/95, §   142, 16 July 2002). 75.     The applicant alleged that his son was killed either by State agents or by inmates of the prison ward where he was found dead. 76.     The Court considers that   the applicant’s allegation that his son was killed by agents of the State or the inmates of the ward no. 1 of Diyarbakır E-type prison is not supported by any conclusive evidence. In this connection, the Court points out that it has not been provided with any eyewitness accounts or evidence corroborating the applicant’s account to a decisive extent. 77.     It appears from the case file that, on 24 November 1999 at 8.15 a.m., the corpse of Cemal Uçar was found by prison officers, who then called the prison doctor. The doctor established that Cemal Uçar was dead. 78.     At 9.30 a.m. on the same day, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor conducted an on-site inspection. Subsequently, an autopsy was conducted on Cemal Uçar by the director of the Diyarbakır Forensic Medical Branch Office, who concluded that the applicant’s son had died as a result of mechanical asphyxia resulting from suspension. 79.     The Court further notes that the Diyarbakır public prosecutor heard three prison officers and the inmates of ward no. 1 at Diyarbakır E-type prison. The statements of the prison officers were consistent with each other, as well as with the statements of the inmates. 80.     Moreover, as to the applicant’s allegation that his son was killed by other inmates who had been accused of membership of the Hizbullah and that the authorities were responsible for his death as they placed Cemal Uçar in ward no. 1, the Court notes that Cemal Uçar had requested to be placed in the ward in question (see paragraph 48 above). The Court is not therefore convinced by the applicant’s assertion. 81.     In the light of the above, the Court finds that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant’s son was, beyond reasonable doubt, killed by State agents or by the two inmates of the prison ward where Cemal Uçar was found dead, as alleged by the applicant. 82.     It follows that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention on that account. b.     The alleged failure of the authorities to supervise the detainee 83.     The Court recalls that the first sentence of Article 2 § 1 requires the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of judgments and decisions 1998-III, p. 1403, § 36). The Court’s task is, therefore, to determine whether, given the circumstances of the case, the State did all that could have been required of it to prevent the life of the applicant’s son from being, avoidably, put at risk. The Court further considers that, in appropriate circumstances, Article 2 of the Convention also imposes a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual, or from self ‑ harm (see Akdoğdu , cited above, §   44). 84.     Bearing in mind the difficulties in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources, the scope of the positive obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. Accordingly, not every claimed risk to life can entail a Convention requirement for the authorities to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom , no. 27229/95, § 90, ECHR 2001 ‑ III, and Akdoğdu , cited   above, § 45). 85.     The Court considers that, faced with the allegation that the authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligation to protect the life of a prisoner, in the context of their duty to supervise detainees and prevent suicide, there must be convincing evidence that the authorities should have known at the time that the person concerned was at risk and that they did not take the measures which could reasonably be expected of them to allay that risk (see Tanribilir v. Turkey , no. 21422/93, § 72, 16 November 2000, and Akdoğdu , cited   above, § 46). The answer to that question depends on all the circumstances of the case. 86.     Consequently, the Court will examine whether the authorities knew or ought to have known that Cemal Uçar posed a real and immediate risk of suicide and, if so, whether they did all that could reasonably have been expected of them to prevent that risk. 87.     First, there is nothing in the case file which demonstrates that the prison authorities failed to conduct the routine monitoring of the prison ward in which Cemal Uçar was incarcerated. Nor is there any evidence that the prison authorities knew that Cemal Uçar posed a risk to his own life and, therefore, he should have been supervised more closely than an ordinary detainee. In this connection, the Court notes that although, following the death of Cemal Uçar, the inmates of the ward stated that he had been depressed and talked about killing himself, the two medical reports drawn up as regards the applicant’s son, which are dated 2   and   11   November 1999, did not refer to any psychological disturbance. Furthermore, the Court observes that, in the material before it, there is no evidence that Cemal Uçar gave any cause for caution or alarm to the national authorities regarding his mental state. 88.     In the circumstances of the case, the Court is not persuaded that the prison authorities knew that Cemal Uçar’s mental state was such that he posed a potential risk to his own life. 89.     Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention on that account. 2.     The alleged inadequacy of the investigation into the death of Cemal   Uçar 90.     The Court recalls that, according to its case-law, the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 to “secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed. This obligation is not confined to cases where it has been established that the killing was caused by an agent of the State. Nor is it decisive whether members of the deceased’s family or others have lodged a formal complaint about the killing with the competent investigation authority. The mere fact that the authorities were informed of the killing of an individual gives rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no.   23763/94, §§ 101 and 103, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV). This involves, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of possible signs of ill-treatment and injury, and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see Salman   v.   Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 105, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII, and Akdoğdu , cited   above, § 54). The nature and degree of scrutiny which satisfies the minimum threshold of an investigation’s effectiveness depends on the circumstances of each particular case. It must be assessed on the basis of all relevant facts and with regard to the practical realities of investigation work (see Velikova   v.   Bulgaria , no. 41488/98, § 80, ECHR   2000-VI, and Ülkü   Ekinci , cited above, §144). 91.     In the present case, an investigation was indeed carried out into the death of the applicant’s son. 92.     According to the documents submitted by the parties, very shortly after the corpse of Cemal Uçar had been found, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor conducted an on-site inspection in the prison and a detailed report was drafted. Subsequently, a further report was drafted by technical police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. They took photographs and drew a plan of the scene of the incident. They also filmed the ward with a video camera. 93.     On the same day, an autopsy was conducted by a medical expert who concluded that the cause of death had been mechanical asphyxia resulting from suspension.   Although photographs of the body were not taken during the autopsy, the report explicitly stated that no indication of ill ‑ treatment, such as scars or bruises, was found on the corpse. 94.     The public prosecutor took statements from the inmates of the ward where Cemal Uçar had been incarcerated, as well as from three prison officers. 95.   As regards the applicant’s submissions that no photographs of the body were taken and that there was no impartial observer independent of the authorities present during the autopsy, the Court observes that the applicant could have challenged the decision not to prosecute issued by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor of 2 December 1999 before the assize court, but he failed to do so. In fact, the applicant and his representatives remained totally passive on the national level following the death of Cemal Uçar. 96.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the investigation conducted into the death of Cemal Uçar could be described as adequate and effective. 97.     Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article   2 of the Convention under its procedural limb. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 5 OF THE CONVENTION 98.     The applicant submitted that the abduction and torture of his son by State agents or person acting with their support, knowledge or acquiescence, and the suffering which he endured on account of his son’s disappearance between 5 October and 2 November 1999, was in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. He further maintained that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the abduction and torture of his son. The applicant finally contended under Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 of the Convention that Cemal Uçar had been kept in police custody for nine days without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and that there was no remedy in domestic law to obtain compensation for his son’s unlawful detention. A.     The period between 5 October and 2   November 1999 1.     Submissions of the parties a.     The applicant 99.     The applicant submitted that his son had been abducted and tortured by kidnappers who were acting with the support, knowledge and acquiescence of the authorities, and that there had been no effective investigation into his son’s abduction and ill-treatment. 100.     The applicant finally contended that he had suffered anguish and distress on account of the d