CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 octobre 2000

.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 } .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 23 October 2000 Satık and Others v. Turkey - 31866/96 Judgment 10.10.2000 [Section I] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Assault on prisoners: violation Facts : The ten applicants and twelve other prisoners objected when prison officers attempted to search them while they were waiting to be transferred to the State Security Court for trial. They claim that the prison authorities then enlisted the help of the gendarmes who were to accompany them on the trip and that 50 gendarmes and 30 prison staff assaulted them with truncheons and planks, causing injuries. The Government maintain that the prisoners linked arms to protest against the proposed search and fell down the stairs, injuring themselves on the walls, stairs and railings. The public prosecutor was informed of the incident and questioned the victims and prison staff. Medical examinations were carried out and reports mentioned body trauma resulting from battery. However, the prosecutor decided not to prosecute the prison staff and declined jurisdiction in respect of the gendarmes in favour of the Administrative Council in April 1996. The file then went missing. After an inquiry in April 2000 the Administrative Council decided that no investigation should be carried out in respect of the gendarmes responsible for the transfer of the prisoners. Law : Article 3 – The principle that it is incumbent on the Government to provide a plausible explanation for injuries sustained by someone who was in good health when detained applies equally in the prison context. In this case, the Government’s explanation sits ill with the nature of the injuries recorded in the medical reports. Moreover, the applicants were unequivocal in their account and the Government have not suggested that the gendarmes’ intervention was considered necessary to quell a riot or a planned attack. When prison authorities have recourse to outside help to deal with an incident in prison, there should be some form of independent monitoring in order to ensure accountability for the force used. The Administrative Council decided not to authorise a criminal investigation more than four years after receiving the case file and during that time the file had disappeared: the authorities’ failure to secure the integrity of important case documents must be considered a most serious defect in the investigative process. The absence of the case file must cast doubt on the merits of the decision finally reached and indeed the decision to entrust the Administrative Council with the investigation must call into question the possibility of making any independent finding as to what happened. In the absence of a plausible explanation on the part of the authorities for the injuries sustained by the applicants, it must be concluded that they were beaten by State agents as alleged. This treatment amounts to a violation of Article 3. Furthermore, the Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) cannot be sustained: the inadequacy of the investigation is in itself inconsistent with the authorities’ duty under Article 3 to carry out an investigation into an arguable claim that an individual has been seriously ill-treated at the hands of State agents. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 2 – In the light of the above conclusion, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine this complaint. Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded each of the applicants £5,000 (GBP) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It made a global award in respect of costs.   © 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