CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 décembre 1996

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. December 1996 Aksoy v. Turkey - 21987/93 Judgment 18.12.1996 Article 3 Torture Alleged torture in South-East Turkey: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   COURT'S ASSESSMENT OF THE FACTS Court, in line with constant case-law, accepts facts as found by Commission - finds it established that applicant, having been detained incommunicado for at least fourteen days, appeared before public prosecutor with visible injuries to arms. II.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES) Reiteration of general principles concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies. Understandable if applicant formed belief that he could not hope to secure satisfaction through national legal channels, having seen that prosecutor took no action although aware of injuries and under duty to investigate - thus special circumstances existed which absolved him from obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. Conclusion : objection dismissed (eight votes to one). III.   MERITS A.   Article 3 of the Convention Applicant complained he had been suspended from his arms ("Palestinian hanging") causing paralysis of both arms. Court considers that where individual is taken into police custody in good health but found to be injured on release, incumbent on State to provide plausible explanation. Ill-treatment was of such a serious and cruel nature that it can only be described as torture. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). B.   Article 5 § 3 of the Convention Article 15 of the Convention - Turkey gave notice of derogation from obligations under Article 5 to Secretary General on 5 May 1992. Court considers that extent and impact of PKK terrorist activity in South-East Turkey has given rise to "public emergency". Fourteen days is exceptionally long period of detention without judicial supervision - insufficient safeguards - not necessitated by exigencies of situation. Court competent to examine of its own motion whether Turkish notice of derogation met formal requirements of Article 15 § 3, in particular whether it contained sufficient information about impugned measure - unnecessary to rule on this in view of above finding. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). C.   Alleged lack of remedy 1.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention Applicant complained that prosecutor's failure to investigate torture destroyed chances of success in civil proceedings. Since he did not apply to civil courts, Court cannot determine whether or not they would have been able to deal with claim - crux of complaint concerned lack of investigation - more appropriate to consider it in relation to Article 13. Conclusion : not necessary to consider complaint (eight votes to one). 2.   Article 13 of the Convention Where individual has arguable claim to have been tortured by agents of State, notion of "effective remedy" entails, in addition to payment of compensation where appropriate, thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to identification and punishment of those responsible. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). D.   ARTICLE 25 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Allegation that applicant killed because of application to Commission - no evidence to support claim. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: compensation awarded in view of seriousness of violations. B.   Costs and expenses: awarded in full. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sums (eight votes to one).   © 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