CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 392/21 Levent TÜRKKAN against Türkiye lodged on 14 December 2020 communicated on 31 March 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment during his police custody in the immediate aftermath of the attempted military coup. On 15   July 2016 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an armed terrorist organisation (“Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). He remained in custody until he was placed in pre-trial detention on 19 July 2016. The medical report drawn up at the Ankara Gazi Mustafa Kemal State Hospital on 16 July 2016 noted that the applicant had first and second degree burns on his abdomen, chest and palms, a 6 cm burn and dermabrasion on the left temporal lobe, a 6x7 cm lesion and haematoma on the right temporal lobe, an ecchymosis on the right eye, a bleeding lesion on the nose, a hyperaemic lesion in the shape of five fingers on the right humerus. The doctor advised that he should be examined at the brain surgery and burns departments. An officer was present during the medical examination. On 17   July 2016 a new report was drawn up by another doctor, noting subconjunctival haemorrhage, oedema in the nasal dorsum, various abrasions and ecchymoses on different parts of the applicant’s head and body, as well as second degree burns on his left shoulder, left hemithorax and abdomen. The medical report drawn up on 18 July 2016 stated that there were no additional findings apart from those already made. The photographs in the case file show the applicant with his hands and torso in bandages and with visible injuries and ecchymoses on his face. On 20 July 2016 the applicant gave a statement before the Magistrates’ Court, declaring, inter alia , that his injuries resulted from a normal procedure during custody and that the burns had been caused by hot cement as he had lied on the ground. During the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, at the hearings on 22   June 2017 and 24 December 2018, he argued that he had been subjected to torture during custody. He claimed that he had been heavily beaten in the face, had had his nails pulled off, and his palms and abdomen burned. On 22 August 2019 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, complaining of a violation of the prohibition of ill ‑ treatment and the right to liberty. On 11 June 2020 the Constitutional Court rejected his application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention that he was subjected to torture as was proven by the medical reports and his photographs taken at the Magistrates’ Court. He maintains that although his injuries had been clearly visible, the judge at the Magistrates’ Court did not have regard to his situation. He also argues that his initial statements at the Magistrates’ Court, wherein he denied having been subjected to ill-treatment, could not be taken into account as they were given in the presence of officers, under a continued threat of torture.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§   81-90, ECHR 2015)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or inhuman treatment, were the domestic authorities under an obligation to initiate an investigation of their own motion, either after the applicant’s medical examination and questioning by the Magistrates’ Court on 20 July 2016 or following his submissions during the criminal proceedings against him   that he had been subjected to torture during custody (see Velev v. Bulgaria , no.   43531/08, § 60, 16 April 2013, and Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v.   Russia , nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, §§ 48 and 57, 13   October 2020)? Was the absence of such an investigation in breach of the State’s positive obligation to conduct an official investigation under Article   3 of the Convention (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia , no. 71156/01, § 97, 3 May 2007)?