CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 11 décembre 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sE87DE78A { height:11.3pt } .s1605B0A7 { height:13.45pt } .sC707265A { height:9.65pt } .s14DAB0A7 { height:13.95pt } .s2CC9B0A7 { height:12.35pt } .s784E78A { height:10.1pt } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .sABADE2F3 { width:85.7pt } .s19C64C3E { width:211.65pt } .sE40C1F58 { width:92.1pt } .s8B39D7B5 { width:0.4pt } .s833ED7B5 { width:0.5pt } .s2111DEB4 { width:85pt } .sD805735B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-7.1pt; font-size:12pt } .s5F6BB722 { font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s60AA8033 { font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF16EA2EF { font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s429CC6FC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-7.1pt } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)357 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 13 cases against Turkey   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 December 2019 at the 1363 rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 35811/97 KOLU 02/08/2005 02/11/2005 46213/99 ÖRS AND OTHERS 20/06/2006 20/09/2006 74500/01 ÇELIK AND OTHERS 26/06/2007 26/09/2007 46286/99 HACİ ÖZEN 12/04/2007 12/07/2007 38419/02 SACETTİN YILDIZ 05/06/2007 05/09/2007 36487/02 MENTEŞ 06/02/2007 06/05/2007 12769/02 OSMANAĞAOĞLU 21/07/2009 21/10/2009 30235/03 ÖZCAN ÇOLAK 06/10/2009 06/01/2010 29503/03 ÇOLAKOĞLU 20/10/2009 20/01/2010 17879/04 AHMET ENGIN ŞATIR 01/12/2009 01/03/2010 2082/05 AYDIN ÇETİNKAYA 02/02/2016 02/05/2016 16486/04 GÜVENILIR 13/10/2009 13/01/2010 4341/04 SOYHAN 06/10/2009 06/01/2010   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established therein;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases primarily concern the right to a fair trial on account of the applicants’ convictions on the basis of statements made in the absence of a lawyer and subsequent failure of domestic courts to make an assessment on the admissibility of evidence (violations of Article 6) (this issue is being examined under the case of Omer Guner) ;   Recalling further that in some of these cases the Court found other violations, but that general measures in respect of these violations have been or are being examined by the Committee in the context of other groups of cases, namely:   - Measures aimed at preventing excessive length of police custody were taken within the framework of the Murat Satık and Others group (Final Resolution ResDH(2005)75 ); - Measures in relation to excessive length of proceedings and introducing an effective remedy in this respect were taken within the framework of the Ormancı and Others group of cases (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)298 ); - Measures in relation to the State Security Courts were taken within the framework of the cases of Sertkaya (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)83 ), Çıraklar (see Final Resolution DH(99)555 ) and the Gençel group (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)256 ); -   Measures relating to the absence of legal assistance in police custody were taken within the Salduz group of cases (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)219 ); - Measures concerning the failure to communicate to the applicants the prosecutor’s opinion before the Court of Cassation were taken under the Göç group of cases (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)307 ); - Measures in relation to unfair proceedings due to the accused’s inability to appear at the hearing in the trial court were examined under the Zana case (18954/91) (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)305 ); - Measures concerning inhuman treatment in police custody and the absence of an effective remedy are being examined under the Batı group of cases;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2019)1322 );   Recalling that the question of individual measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in the judgments of Batmaz (44023/09), Kapan and Others (71803/01) and Mehmet Duman (38740/09) continues to be examined and that the closure of the 13 cases listed above in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the individual measures required in these three cases;   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.