CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 2 novembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 540 2.11.2004 Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ABDÜLSAMET YAMAN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey (application no. 32446/96).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights because the applicant had been tortured while in police custody; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge); a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court); a violation of Article 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation); no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination); and, no violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 17,700 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,659 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Abdülsamet Yaman, is a Turkish national, born in 1964, who was the provincial leader of HADEP (People’s Democracy Party) in Adana (Turkey). He was detained in the Konya Prison in Turkey at the time of the application and now lives in Germany.     On 3 July 1995 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Adana Security Directorate. He alleged that he was blindfolded, put in a car, beaten and threatened. He was then taken to the Adana Security Directorate, where he was detained and interrogated for nine days, until 11 July 1995.   The applicant maintained that, during this period, he was blindfolded, stripped naked and immersed in cold water. He was attached by the arms to the ceiling pipes and made to stand on a chair. Electric cables were attached to his body, including his sexual organs. The chair was then pulled away and he was left suspended while electric shocks were administered. From time to time the shocks were stopped and his testicles were squeezed. The applicant claimed that he was interrogated about his work and his connections with an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan   Workers’   Party), and as to why he had helped torture victims apply to the European Commission of Human Rights. He claimed that, as a result of being tortured, his injuries included losing full use of his left arm and a broken rib.   On 11 July 1995, Mr Yaman was examined by a medical expert who found 4 x 3 cm superficial scab wounds on his right knee and inside both wrists and noted that the applicant complained of numbness in his left arm and pain in the right side of his chest.   On the same day, he was brought before the Adana Magistrates’ Court, where he denied the veracity of the statements that had allegedly been taken from him by the police. The court ordered his detention on remand. He alleged that on the way back to Adana Prison, the policemen accompanying him beat him with rifle butts and truncheons.   On 12 July 1995 the prison doctor found, among other things, bruises of 3-4 cm on the applicant’s upper left arm and numerous erythematic and some ecchymosed lesions on his back.   The applicant claimed that his requests to be treated in hospital and to see a doctor from the Turkish Human Rights Foundation were refused.   On 9 October 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor from the Turkish Human Rights Foundation who noted that he was suffering from pain in the gums, inability to eat due to missing teeth, pain in the chest and pain and restricted movement in the wrists and knees. The applicant had also contracted pleurisy , which required surgery. The report referred to his ill ‑ treatment and the prison conditions as the reasons for his medical condition.   In May 2000   the applicant arrived in Germany, where he claimed asylum and, on 20 June 2000, he was granted a residence permit in Germany. On 5 March 2001 a doctor found that it could not be excluded that the applicant’s condition was the result of torture. On 29 January 2002 another doctor diagnosed the applicant as suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress syndrome and serious psychosomatic problems.   On 16 March 1999 Adana State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 169 of the Criminal Code of aiding and abetting the PKK members and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment.   On 20 October 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office in Adana alleging that he had been ill-treated during his detention in police custody.   On 29 December 1995, following a preliminary investigation against two police officers from the Adana Security Directorate, the Adana public prosecutor declined to take criminal proceedings against the officers due to lack of evidence against them.   Between May 1997 and March 1999, the Adana chief public prosecutor’s office conducted a new preliminary investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment after being informed of the applicant’s case before the European Commission of Human Rights. Those proceedings were discontinued on 27   March 2003 on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred. 2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 January 1996 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 14 December 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment   Complaints   Relying on Articles 3 and 13, the applicant alleged that he had been subjected to torture while in police custody, that there had been no adequate or effective investigation into his complaints and that he was denied an effective remedy in relation to those complaints.   He also complained under Article 5 § 3 that he had been kept in police custody for nine days without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, under Article 5 § 4, that there were no remedies in domestic law to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in police custody and, under Article 5 § 5, that he had no right to compensation for the excessive length of the custody period.   He further maintained, under Article 14, that he had been detained and tortured due to his Kurdish ethnic origin and his affiliation to HADEP , which was considered to be the main Kurdish political party. He also relied on Article 18.   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. Following his transfer from police custody, a medical report and a medical note referred to scabs, bruises and lesions on various parts of his body and the findings contained in medical certificates drafted by independent medical professionals in 1997, 2000 and 2001 were consistent with his allegations of ill ‑ treatment. The Court also observed that the Turkish Government had not provided a plausible explanation for the marks and injuries identified on the applicant’s body.   In the light of the circumstances of the case as a whole and in the absence of a plausible explanation by the Turkish Government, the Court concluded that the injuries noted in the medical report and note were the result of ill-treatment for which the Government bore responsibility.   Having regard to the nature and degree of the ill-treatment and to the strong inferences that could be drawn from the evidence that it was inflicted in order to obtain information from the applicant about his suspected connection with the PKK, the Court found that the ill-treatment involved very serious and cruel suffering that could only be characterised as torture. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3.   The Court did not deem it necessary to make a separate finding under Article 3 in respect of the alleged deficiencies in the investigation, which it considered to be more appropriately examined under Article 13   Article 13 The Court noted that, despite the applicant’s serious allegations, the public prosecutor’s office in Adana remained totally passive and failed to bring any criminal charges against the perpetrators of the ill ‑ treatment. It was not until one year and four months later, following the communication of the application by the European Commission of Human Rights to the Turkish Government, that a new investigation was conducted into the applicant’s allegations. The Assize Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the police officers almost five years after the initiation of the proceedings and nine years after the acts of ill ‑ treatment had occured.   The Court was struck by the fact that the proceedings in question had not produced any result on account mainly of the substantial delays throughout the trials and, decisively, the application of the statutory limitations in domestic law.   Finding that the proceedings in question could not properly be described as thorough and effective, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 5 § 3 The Court had already accepted on a number of occasions that the investigation of terrorist offences undoubtedly presented the authorities with special problems. That did not mean, however, that the authorities had carte blanche to arrest suspects and detain them in police custody, free from effective control by the courts whenever they considered that there had been a terrorist offence.   Even supposing that the activities of which the applicant was accused were linked to a terrorist threat, the Court could not accept that it was necessary to detain him for nine days without judicial intervention. Finding that he had not been brought promptly before a judge, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Article 5 § 4 The Court noted that the applicant was unable to challenge his detention in police custody, since the nine-day period was in conformity with the Turkish law at the relevant time. Finding that the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was not decided “speedily”, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.       Article 5 § 5 The Court observed that, as the applicant’s detention in police custody was in conformity with domestic law, he did not have a right to compensation. There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   Articles 14 and 18 The Court found that no violation of Articles 14 or 18 could be established on the basis of the evidence before it.   ***   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.