CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 septembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 100 August-September 2007 Teren Aksakal v. Turquie - 51967/99 Judgment 11.9.2007 [Section II] Article 2 Positive obligations De facto impunity of State agents convicted of complicity in the torture and subsequent death of a person in police custody – effectiveness of criminal proceedings: violation   Article 35 Article 35-3 Ratione temporis Acts of torture and death prior to date when Court acquired jurisdiction ratione temporis , but trial after that date: partial jurisdiction ratione temporis (procedural obligations)   Facts : In October 1980, one month after the declaration of a state of emergency following the armed forces’ military intervention, the applicant’s husband was detained for eight days at the gendarmerie station on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation. He was then transferred to a sports hall where he underwent questioning for a further eight days, before being imprisoned in the state of emergency surveillance centre. The following day he was admitted to hospital in a pre-comatose state. He died a few days later. An autopsy report revealed wounds, bruises and grazes. The applicant lodged a complaint in January 1981. In a judgment given in December 1997, which became final in January 2003, the domestic courts sentenced two gendarmerie officers to two years and one month’s imprisonment, finding that they had been complicit in acts of torture. The courts further found that the victim had died as a result of an illness and following torture inflicted by civilians whose identity could not be established. The officers concerned continued to serve in the army throughout the proceedings and after their conviction, until they reached retirement.   At the time of the judgment by the Strasbourg Court, their sentences had not been enforced. Law : Articles 2 and 3 – Limits of the Court’s temporal jurisdiction : With regard to Turkey’s substantive negative obligations (to refrain from torture and intentional killing), the facts complained of had occurred in 1980, that is, prior to 28 January 1987, the starting date for the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis in respect of applications against Turkey: no jurisdiction ratione temporis with regard to the substantive aspect of the complaints. However, the Court dismissed the Government’s objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis with regard to the effectiveness of the criminal proceedings which ended in 2003 (procedural obligations), while confining its temporal jurisdiction to the proceedings pending on 28 January 1987. The Court decided also to consider the facts occurring prior to that date in so far as they had created a situation defined in the proceedings to protect the rights guaranteed by Articles 2 and 3 and were relevant for the understanding of facts occurring after the critical date of 28 January 1987. Procedural aspect : In view of the shortcomings in the criminal proceedings, the failure to meet the requirements of promptness and diligence and the fact that those responsible for the acts complained of had enjoyed effective impunity, the criminal proceedings concerned had been far from rigorous and had not been capable of acting as an effective deterrent to acts such as those in question. The outcome of the proceedings at issue had not provided appropriate redress for the breach of the values enshrined in Articles 2 and 3. Conclusion : violation of the procedural aspects of Articles 2 and 3 (five votes to two); unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 45,000 for non-pecuniary damage, to be held by the applicant on her own behalf and on behalf of her three children. As regards the Court’s temporal jurisdiction, see, in particular, Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no.   59532/00, ECHR 2006, Information Note No. 84. See also the recent case of Šilih v. Slovenia , no.   71463/01, Information Note No. 98.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes