CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 30 septembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sFB4D0E3C { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)114 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Ali Alfatlı and others against Turkey   (Application No. 32984/96, judgment of 2/10/2003, final on 2/10/2003, friendly settlement)     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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the applicants’ admissible complaints in this case concerned the excessive length of criminal proceedings in particular before Martial Law Courts and also partly before ordinary criminal courts and the lack of independence and impartiality of the Martial Law Court on account of the presence of two military judges and an army officer sitting on the bench (complaints under Article 6, paragraph 1).   Considering that in this case the Court took note of a friendly settlement reached between the government of the respondent state and the applicants (except for the applicant Mahmut Memduh Uyan – see the judgment of 30 October 2003), and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols decided, unanimously, to strike this case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the cases before the Grand Chamber;   Whereas under this friendly settlement it was agreed that the government of the respondent state would pay the applicants certain sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage, as well as the costs and expenses;   Recalling that the striking-out of a case which has been declared admissible is effected by means of a judgment which the Court forwards to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance, friendly settlement or solution of the matter;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment, having regard to it’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;   Having satisfied itself that, on 16/12/2003, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment,   Having examined the information supplied by the government of Turkey,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in this case and   DECIDES to close its examination.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 September 2009 at the 1065th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies