CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 octobre 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 } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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   526 26.10.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ÇELİK AND İMRET v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Çelik and İmret v. Turkey (application no. 44093/98).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Abdurrahman Çelik; no violation of Article 3 concerning Kasım İmret; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention concerning both applicants.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Çelik 10,000 euros (EUR) and Mr   İmret EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and the applicants jointly EUR 3,000, less EUR 625 (granted by way of legal aid) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Abdurrahman Çelik and Kasım İmret, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1958 and 1947 respectively and live in Batman (Turkey). On 17 May 1998 they were arrested on suspicion of acting as couriers for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – which is proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law – and detained at Batman Security Directorate.   The applicants maintained that, while in police custody: they were blindfolded and immersed in cold water; they had to stand naked while electric shocks were administered to various parts of their bodies, including their sexual organs; and, their testicles were squeezed and that their hands and legs were tied. They also claimed that they were: severely beaten, deprived of food and water, prevented from using toilet facilities, kept in isolation, subjected to unbearable noises, insulted and threatened with death. The applicants further claimed that they were forced to sign false documents while in detention.   According to a protocol dated 20 May 1998, signed by six police officers, the applicants bumped into each other while they were getting out of a police car and Mr Çelik fell.     On 21 May 1998 the applicants were examined by a prison doctor who noted that there was a 3cm bruise under Mr Çelik’s eye and lesions around his groin. Mr İmret had a 0.5 cm scar on the side of his lip. On 15 July 1999 Mr Çelik was examined by a commission of medical experts who concluded that he was suffering from somatic and psychological problems as a result of physical ill-treatment.   On 12 June 1998 the applicants were charged under Article   169 of the Criminal Code with aiding and abetting members of the PKK. They were acquitted on 4 February 1999 for lack of evidence.   A preliminary investigation was opened into the applicants’ allegations of torture and ill-treatment after the Batman Public Prosecutor’s Office had been informed of the applicants’ case before the European Court of Human Rights on 11 November 1999. On 22 May 2003 the accused police officers were acquitted, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence against them.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 September 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 26 September 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment   Complaints   The applicants complained, under Article 3 of the Convention, that they had been tortured and ill-treated in police custody and that there had been no effective investigation into their complaints. They further alleged that they were denied an effective domestic remedy concerning those complaints, in violation of Article 13. Decision of the Court   Article 3   Mr Çelik While the Court did not exclude the possibility of accidents occurring in detention, it did not find convincing the Turkish Government’s explanation that the applicant could have had a bruise on his eye and lesions around the groin at the same time as a result of a fall. Moreover, the protocol dated 20 May 1998 concerning the alleged accident did not appear to be credible as it had not been signed by the applicants.   Mr Çelik was 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 detention and claimed that it was obtained under duress.   The Court reiterated that a State was responsible for the welfare of detainees, who were in a vulnerable situation, and that it 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 from the Turkish Government, the Court considered that the injuries recorded in the medical report of 21 May 1998 were the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 3 concerning Mr Çelik.   Mr İmret The Court observed that the medical report of 21 May 1998 contained a statement that Mr İmret had a scar on his lip, but that the applicant had not produced any other cogent evidence in support of his allegations of ill-treatment nor supplied a detailed account of the alleged abuse in police custody which would have caused the scar.   While the Court did not find the account of events stated in the documents submitted by the Turkish Government credible or convincing, it considered that the material before it regarding Mr İmret’s assertion that he was subjected to ill-treatment did not constitute sufficient evidence to support that conclusion. Finding that the evidence presented did not enable it to find beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was subjected to treatment that attained a sufficient level of severity to come within the scope of Article 3, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 3 concerning Mr İmret.   The Court did not deem it necessary to make a separate finding under Article 3 concerning 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 applicants’ serious allegations, the judicial authorities failed to bring any criminal charges against the accused police officers promptly. It was not until a year and six months after the applicants had made their complaints, and not until the application before the European Court of Human Rights had been communicated to the Turkish Government, that a new investigation was conducted into the allegations.   The Court also observed that, among other things, the procedure concerning the accused police officers was not completed until five years after the acts complained of had occurred.   The Court considered that the complete inactivity of the authorities for one year and six months in response to the serious allegations raised by the applicants and the speed of the subsequent proceedings did not comply with the requirement of “promptness”. Finding that the proceedings could not properly be described as thorough and effective, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 concerning both applicants.   ***   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.