CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 mars 2006

.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 } .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. 84 March 2006 Devrim Turan v. Turkey - 879/02 Judgment 2.3.2006 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Treatment while in police custody and attempts to carry out a gynaecological examination: no violation, inadmissible   Facts : In 1999 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front). Two hours after her arrest she was taken to hospital to be examined. A medical report indicated the presence of an abrasion under one eye but no signs of ill-treatment on her body. Further medical examinations were carried out which also concluded that her body showed no signs of ill-treatment. The applicant refused to undergo a gynaecological examination on the first and the last day of her arrest and no such examination was carried out. Before a public prosecutor she denied the allegations against her and maintained that the statement she had made to the police shortly after her arrest had been taken under duress. She stated that she had been hosed with cold water, subjected to electric shocks and Palestinian hanging. She repeated her allegations before an investigating judge. Criminal proceedings were initiated against her before a state security court. She wrote to the court retracting her statement which she maintained had been made under duress. She also described in more detail her ill-treatment in police custody. She was found guilty as charged and sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. She appealed to the Court of Cassation, referring in particular to her ill-treatment in custody, but her appeal was rejected. Law : Article   3 (attempts to subject the applicant to a gynaecological examination): The Court noted that while being taken to the hospital for a gynaecological examination might have caused distress to the applicant, medical examination of detainees by a forensic doctor can prove to be a significant safeguard against false accusations of sexual molestation or ill-treatment. Furthermore, it was undisputed that when the applicant had refused to undergo the examination in question, no force had been used against her and the doctors had refrained from performing the said examination. The sole fact that twice during her arrest she had been taken to hospital for a gynaecological examination did not attain the minimum level of severity amounting to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article   3. Conclusion : inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded (by majority vote). Article   3 (treatment while in police custody): The Court found that a number of elements in the case raised doubts as to whether the applicant had suffered ill-treatment while in police custody. In particular, no signs of ill-treatment on her body had been noted in the medical reports. Although some injuries to her face had been noted, those details had been taken on the first day of her arrest whereas her allegations concerning ill-treatment had concerned the time she had spent in police custody. In conclusion, the evidence before the Court did not enable it to find beyond all reasonable doubt that she had been subjected to ill-treatment. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article   13: The Court noted that the applicant had repeatedly complained about her ill-treatment to the national authorities. The Court referred in particular to her statements as taken down by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, her letter to the trial court where she had retracted her statement made to the police and her appeal to the Court of Cassation. The authorities were therefore clearly aware of her allegations but had taken no steps to investigate them. Hence the authorities had failed to fulfil their obligation to provide the applicant with an effective remedy concerning her allegations of ill-treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41: The Court awarded the applicant EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and a certain amount for costs and expenses.   © 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