CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 juillet 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   374 20.7.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MEHMET EMIN YÜKSEL v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey (application no. 40154/98).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and, a violation of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mehmet Emin Yüksel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was a   student at the Medical Faculty of Diyarbakır Dicle University at the relevant time.   On 4 April 1997 the applicant was placed in custody and interrogated by police officers from Diyarbakır Security Directorate, in relation to his alleged involvement in an illegal organisation, the YEKBUN (Kurdistan United People’s Party).   He alleged that he was left with an oedema, a bruised nose and a broken tooth after being ill-treated by the police officers; the Turkish Government maintained that the applicant’s injuries occurred when, due to lack of sleep, he inadvertently fell and hit his nose on a sink.   On 6 April 1997 the applicant signed a statement which said that that he had hit his nose on a sink while washing his face.   The same day, he was taken to Diyarbakır State Hospital and examined by a doctor who found, “an oedema and an ecchymosed lesion as a result of trauma” on his nose. On 8 April 1997 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him. As a result, the Diyarbakır chief public prosecutor ordered that the applicant be examined by a   forensic   medical expert, who found that he had an abrasion measuring 1 x 0.5 cm on his nose, a fractured tooth and that he was unfit to work for two days.   On 15 April 1997 the public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and referred the investigation file to the Diyarbakır District Administrative Council. On 26 June 1997 the Administrative Council decided that, due to lack of evidence, the police officers who had allegedly ill ‑ treated the applicant should not be prosecuted. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   On 13 June 1997 the applicant was acquitted by Diyarbakır State Security Court, which noted in its judgment the applicant’s statement that he had been interrogated by police officers under duress.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 January 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. By a decision of 2 December 2003, the Court declared the application partly admissible.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged, under Article 3 of the Convention, that he was subjected to ill ‑ treatment – amounting to torture – during his detention in police custody. He further complained that he had no effective remedy in respect of his allegation of torture, as required by Article 13, and that he was denied the right to intervene in the criminal proceedings against the police officers, in violation of Article 6 § 1.       Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that the applicant was not medically examined at the beginning of his detention and did not have access to a lawyer or doctor of his choice while in police custody. On 6   April 1997, two days after being taken into custody, he was examined by a doctor who noted the presence of an oedema and ecchymosed lesion on the applicant’s nose caused by trauma. A further medical examination indicated that one of the applicant’s teeth had been broken and the forensic medical expert found that those injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for two days.   Concerning the Turkish Government’s position that the applicant had hit his nose on a sink, the Court did not exclude the possibility of accidents occurring in detention. However, it did not find it convincing that the applicant could have broken one of his back teeth and sustained injuries to his nose at the same time, through accidentally coming into contact with a solid object. The applicant was also unequivocal in his account that he had been ill-treated by police officers while in custody and had consistently denied the accuracy of the statement which he had signed in police custody, claiming that it had been obtained under duress.   The Court reiterated that a State was responsible for the welfare of all its detainees; they were in a vulnerable situation and the authorities had a duty to protect them. Bearing in mind the authorities’ obligation to account for injuries caused to those within their control in custody and in the absence of a convincing and plausible explanation by the Turkish Government, the Court considered that the injuries recorded in the medical reports of 6 and 8 April 1997 were the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. The Court, therefore, held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3.   The Court did not consider it necessary to make a separate finding under Article 3 in respect of the alleged deficiencies in the investigation, a matter which it examined under Article 13.   Article 13   It appeared from the documents submitted to the Court that neither the accused police officers nor the applicant were requested to testify in the course of the investigation. It also transpired that no other investigative steps were taken by the Administrative Council, which eventually decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of evidence. Moreover, the applicant’s representative received no written reply from the Administrative Council to his petition although he specifically requested a copy of the investigation file.   The Court reiterated that investigations carried out by administrative councils could not be regarded as independent, since they were chaired by the governors, or their deputies, and composed of local representatives of the executive, who were hierarchically dependent on the governors.   Considering that the proceedings could not properly be described as thorough, effective and independent, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.