CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .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   383 27.7.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF A. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of A. and Others v. Turkey (application no. 30015/96).   The Court held unanimously that:   there has been no violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) on account of the death of C.A.; there has been a violation of Article 2 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding C.A.’s death; there has been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of the treatment suffered by C.A. in police custody.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants jointly 25,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses, less EUR 625.04 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, A.A., M.A., R.A. and H.A., are Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1942, 1948, 1970 and 1976 and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). They are the parents and brothers of C.A., who was found hanged in his cell shortly after he was arrested in a police operation against the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, which is a banned terrorist organisation under Turkish law).   The facts of the case are disputed. The applicants maintain that C.A. died as a result of torture in police custody. They alleged that he was arrested on 10 August 1994 and was seen by a witness two days later in the Diyarbakır courthouse.   According to the custody record, C.A. was arrested and taken into police custody with one of his brothers on 22 August 1994 following an identity check. The Turkish Government say that he was found dead the following afternoon, having hanged himself from the bars of his cell window with the aid of a bedcover and his shirt.   The Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor attended the scene immediately and arranged for a record to be made and photographs taken. An autopsy was carried out on 25 August 1994. The pathologist found the cause of death to be “mechanical asphyxia” caused by hanging. He also noted that the body presented various injuries, including scab-covered indentations to the right side of the forehead and the left side of the jaw, a cut on the right elbow and bleeding on the inside of the right forearm. C.A. also had bruising to the scalp and neck.   On 8 March 1995 the public prosecutor brought proceedings against the police officers who had questioned C.A. under Article 245 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to use force or ill-treatment when executing a warrant. A.A. joined the proceedings as an “intervening party”.   In a judgment of 9 April 1996, the Diyarbakır Criminal Court acquitted the police officers concerned, for lack of evidence. Relying on statements by police officers, it found that there were already traces of injury to C.A.’s face when he was arrested and had been driven to suicide by anxiety and pessimism. That judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29   December 1995 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 28 March 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that their son and brother, C.A., had died as a result of torture while in police custody. They relied on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 of the Convention   C.A.’s death The evidence before the Court did not support the applicants’ allegations that C.A. had died as a result of torture at the hands of the security forces.   As regards the authorities’ duty to protect the life of detained persons by supervising them and preventing suicide, the Court noted that there was no evidence before it to show that the standard measures for preventing suicide and supervising prisoners had not been taken. Furthermore, the Court was not convinced that the measures taken to supervise C.A. could be criticised under Article 2, as his state of mind appeared to be “normal”. The means C.A. had used to kill himself, namely a rope made by knotting the border of his bedcover to his shirt tails, would not have been easily foreseeable. There was nothing in the case file to show that the police officers could reasonably have foreseen that C.A. would commit suicide and that they should have posted an officer on round-the-clock watch. Consequently, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 2 on that account.   The investigations into the circumstances surrounding C.A.’s death The Court noted that the public prosecutor had instituted criminal proceedings after injuries were found to the deceased’s body. However, the purpose of that investigation had been to determine whether he had been subjected to ill-treatment, not the circumstances in which he had died. The public prosecutor had relied on the findings of the pathologists and not sought to determine the exact circumstances of death.   In view of the lack of an investigation into C.A.’s suicide, the Court found that Turkey had failed to discharge its obligation to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of death, in breach of Article 2 the Convention.   Article 3 of the Convention   The Court reiterated that any injury sustained by a person while in police custody and under the full control of police officers raised strong factual presumptions. States were responsible for persons in detention, as persons in police custody were vulnerable and the authorities had a duty to protect them.   In the case before the Court, there was no evidence to show that C.A. was given a medical examination immediately after being taken into custody. Furthermore, the decision acquitting the police officers only mentioned an injury to his face, not the other marks found during the autopsy. The Court noted in that connection that the police officers’ comments concerning those injuries were not corroborated by other evidence.   Having regard to all the material before it and the lack of a plausible explanation by the Government, the Court found that the Turkish State was responsible for the injuries to C.A.’s body referred to in the autopsy report. Consequently, it held that there had been a violation Article 3 of the Convention.     ***   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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.