CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       SECOND SECTION Application no. 42899/11 Abdurrahman TEKİN against Turkey lodged on 1 April 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr   Abdurrahman Tekin, is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin who was born in 1950 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is represented before the Court by Ms   R.   Bataray   Saman and Mr   S.   Çelebi, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 18   February 2009 a demonstration was organised in Batıkent, in a   district of Diyarbakır. In his submissions, the applicant stated that, at that time, he had been walking around the area without participating in the demonstration. Nevertheless, police officers who were at the scene sprayed tear gas in his face, beat him and struck him on the head with the butts of their rifles. In the patient’s questionnaire section of a medical report given to him by a doctor on 10   March 2009, the applicant stated that he had been suffering from pain in his right knee and the pain had been increasing over the previous fifteen days as a result of an injury. Upon examination, the doctor noted signs of injury on the applicant’s body and observed that he was suffering from pain in his right knee due to his having suffered a fall two months previously. On an unspecified date, the applicant applied to the Turkish Human Rights Association for legal assistance. He subsequently filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor against the police officers, alleging ill ‑ treatment. Subsequently, the association contacted the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey where the applicant was examined by an orthopaedist. On 28 December 2009 the Governor of Diyarbakır refused to grant authorisation for prosecution of the police officers, owing to a lack of sufficient evidence in support of the allegations of ill-treatment. As a result, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, in a decision of 15   June 2010, decided not to prosecute any members of the security forces. On 29   June 2010 an objection was lodged by the applicant against the prosecutor’s decision. Despite the decision not to prosecute, the Siverek Assize Court accepted that photographs in the case file had shown that police officers had beaten the applicant, who had been passing by the area where the demonstration was taking place. The court held, nevertheless, that the treatment the applicant had been subjected to had been an isolated incident which could not be regarded as torture under domestic law. Accordingly, in this regard, on 24   August 2010, the court dismissed the applicant’s objection, finding that the prosecutor’s decision was in accordance with the applicable legislation and procedure. It served the decision on the applicant on 4   October 2010. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article   3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment, submitting, in particular, that he had been beaten around the head by the security forces and sprayed with tear gas. In support of his complaint, the applicant alleged that even though he had submitted to the domestic court, as evidence, a photograph from a national newspaper which confirmed his version of events, the national authorities had failed to adequately examine his allegations of ill-treatment against the police officers, as a consequence of which he had endured mental and physical suffering. He further complained that the authorities had failed to carry out a   serious and objective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment and that they had thus deprived him of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article   13 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention   ?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see   paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention   ?