CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 septembre 1999

.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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 10 September 1999 Veznedaroğlu v. Turkey (dec.) - 32357/96 Decision 7.9.1999 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period No effective domestic remedy - six-month period running from acquittal and not from the act complained of in the application The applicant, married to a human rights activist, was arrested on suspicion of being a member of the PKK. She was allegedly held under duress during her detention, which lasted several days, and was forced to sign a confession. She maintained before the public prosecutor and the National Security Court judge that she had been forced into signing the confession and had been tortured. She was tried before the National Security Court on the charge of being member of the PKK. She was eventually acquitted for lack of evidence. Admissible under Article 3: Having regard to the circumstances, the applicant can be considered to have done all that could be expected to bring her complaint to the attention of the authorities with a view to the opening of an investigation into her allegation of torture. Furthermore, where an individual has an arguable complaint that there has been a violation of Article 3 the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. The applicant had thus complied with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. In the absence of an effective domestic remedy, the six-month period runs from the act complained of. However, in exceptional circumstances, where an applicant first avails himself or herself of a domestic remedy and only at a later stage becomes aware, or should have become aware, of the circumstances which make that remedy ineffective, the six-month period is calculated from the time when the applicant became aware, or should have become aware, of the ineffectiveness of the remedy. In the instant case, it was not unreasonable for the applicant to wait for the verdict of the National Security Court before lodging an application with the Commission. The proceedings before this court were closely related to the substance of her complaint as she clearly made her torture allegation a key issue, expecting that an investigation would be opened into its merits. The six-month period started running from the date of her acquittal and the application was not time-barred.   © 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