CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 janvier 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 60 January 2004 Tekdağ v. Turkey - 27699/95 Judgment 15.1.2004 [Section II] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Disappearance following alleged abduction by security forces and lack of effective investigation: violation Facts : The applicant maintains that her husband was abducted by plain-clothed policemen in 1994. She claims he was taken into custody and killed by State officials. The other detainees who had seen him during custody were later afraid to testify, and she has never heard from her husband again. The applicant reported his disappearance to the Principal Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court, who initially agreed to look into the matter but subsequently denied that her husband had been detained and affirmed that he was responsible for numerous illegal acts. The applicant made other applications to the authorities but never received an explanation for the disappearance of her husband. The Government generally denied the applicant’s version of the events and alleged that her husband was a PKK sympathiser who had changed his identity and probably joined that organisation. A delegation of the Court took evidence from witnesses in Turkey. Law: Article 2 (abduction and killing) – The applicant’s allegations were not sufficiently proved. As there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged incidents or to the remand in custody of the applicant’s husband, it could not be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that he had been abducted and killed by persons acting on behalf of the State authorities. Conclusion : noviolation (unanimously). Article 2 (effective investigation) – There were important shortcomings in the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s husband carried out by the authorities. In particular, there was a lack of coordination between the different prosecutors involved in the investigation. This resulted, for example, in never tracing or interviewing the applicant’s main witness, who had allegedly seen her husband whilst in custody, or the police officers allegedly involved in his abduction. In view of the failure of the authorities to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicant’s husband, Article 2 had been breached under its procedural limb. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). Article 13 – As no effective criminal investigation was conducted, and bearing in mind that the requirement to investigate under Article 13 is broader than that under Article 2, there had also been a breach of this provision. Conclusion: violation (6 votes to 1). Article 38 § 1 (a) – The Government had failed to furnish all necessary facilities to assist the Court in establishing the facts. Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 14,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of 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