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 } .s5A43AE58 { width:248.91pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7DA86AF6 { width:185.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s71C841A { width:90.1pt; display:inline-block } .s1A806557 { width:146.9pt; display:inline-block } .s92BBE374 { width:101.48pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 539 2.11.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1]     No violation of Article 2 (loss of life)   Violation of Article 2 (inadequate investigation)   No violation of Article 5 Seyhan v. Turkey (application no. 33384/96)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Mehmet Seyhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and now lives in France. His father, Süleyman Seyhan, disappeared on 30 October 1995 and his body was found on 6 March 1996.   The facts are disputed. The applicant maintained that on the morning of 30 October 1995 his father and one of his sisters were made to board a military vehicle by a soldier and a village guard. They, and a number of other people, were taken to a place where they were tortured. His sister was subsequently released, but the applicant and his family received no further news of Süleyman Seyhan.   On 6 November 1995 the applicant’s mother asked the Dargeçit Public Prosecutor to bring proceedings. An investigation was launched and a statement taken from Mrs Seyhan. She said that three village guards, whose names she supplied, had been present on the morning her husband disappeared. The public prosecutor took statements from the guards and from gendarmes identified by a third party.   On 6 March 1996 Süleyman Seyhan’s decomposing and decapitated body was found under stones at the bottom of a well in the village of Korucu. An autopsy was performed, but no cause of death was determined, owing to the advanced state of decomposition. However, the pathologist was able to say that Mr Seyhan had been killed. The circumstances surrounding his death have yet to be established.   The Turkish Government denied that the authorities were in any way implicated in Süleyman Seyhan’s disappearance and death.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleged that his father had been killed by security forces while in custody and complained of the authorities’ failure to carry out an investigation into his death. He further complained of a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and that he had been deprived of an effective remedy in breach of Article 13 (right and effective remedy).   With regard to the death, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant had written a number of letters to the investigating authorities seeking information about his father, but had not disclosed to them, prior to lodging his application, certain evidence, such as statements by witnesses, which he had produced a Court. It also noted a number of inconsistencies between the statements furnished by the applicant and the evidence in the case file, particularly with regard to the alleged arrest of the sister.   Having regard to the material before it, the Court found that it had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the Turkish Government’s responsibility had been engaged in the kidnapping, disappearance and death of Süleyman Seyhan. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 on account of his death.   As to the investigation into the circumstances of the death, the Court noted that although at first sight the initial inquiries appeared to comply with the requirements of Article 2, the conduct of the investigation thereafter, once the authorities had been informed of the suspicions concerning the village guards, could not be considered to have been exhaustive or satisfactory. The public prosecutor had failed to organise a face-to-face meeting between the village guards and the applicant’s mother, who had identified them, and relied on their statements without seeking to establish the precise sequence of events on the day in question. Nor was there any evidence that they had sought to check the truth of the guards’ statements or made any attempt to interview possible witnesses. In those circumstances, the Court found that the Turkish authorities had not conducted an adequate and effective investigation into the disappearance and death of the applicant’s father and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 on that account.   The Turkish State could not be regarded as having conducted an effective criminal investigation, as required by Article 13, the requirements of which were greater than the obligation imposed by Article 2 to conduct an investigation. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5, as there was no factual basis to the complaint.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 625,04 he had received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) Tuncer and Durmuş v. Turkey (no. 30494/96)   Violation Article 5 The applicants, Gülizar Tuncer and Ali Durmuş, are Turkish nationals, born in 1966 and 1963 respectively and living in Istanbul.   According to the applicants, on 8 January 1996 they were in the Alibeyköy neighbourhood, on their way to a funeral. Police officers were arresting people at random. The applicants were beaten by police officers and then arrested, in an incident which attracted media and public attention.   Following their arrest, the applicants were taken to a bus where they were beaten and insulted. They were then taken to Eyüp Stadium, along with 1,054 others, where they were again beaten and insulted. Their identity cards, money and valuables were seized by the police officers. While the applicants were held in Eyüp Stadium their friends filed a petition requesting to have them brought before the competent public prosecutor, which was rejected.   The applicants were released the same day.   On 9 January 1996 they filed a complaint concerning their ill-treatment. The same day they were examined by a doctor who found that Ms Tuncer had bruising of 3 cm in diameter on her right shoulder and shoulder blade, pain in her shoulders and neck, a 4cm bruise on her right hip and marks of bruising on the exterior of her thigh. Mr Durmuş had a 3cm bruise on his right shoulder, a 5 cm bruise on his right arm, a 2cm bruise on his back and bruising of 15-20 cm on his left shoulder and around the shoulder-blade. Both applicants were ultimately found to be unfit for work for ten days.   On 5 November 1999 the accused police officers were acquitted on the ground that there existed no evidence in the case file to identify which of them were responsible for the alleged ill-treatment.   On 2 April 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed this decision, holding that the Law No. 4616 on suspension of proceedings and the execution of sentences regarding offences committed before 23 April 1999 was applicable.   According to the Turkish Government, the applicants were not arrested or taken to Eyüp Stadium . However, in the light of the evidence before it, the Court found it established that the applicants were among those taken to Eyüp Stadium by police officers.   The applicants complained, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, that they were ill-treated during their detention in police custody. They further alleged, under Article 5 § 1 (c) (right to liberty and security), that they were unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty.   Concerning the complaints raised under Article 3, the Court reiterated that a State was responsible for any person in detention, who was in a vulnerable situation while in its charge, and that the authorities had a duty to protect such a person. Bearing in mind the authorities’ obligation to account for injuries caused to those within their control in custody, the Court considered that the acquittal of the police officers suspected of inflicting ill ‑ treatment or the suspension of proceedings and execution of sentences in accordance with Law no.   4616 could not absolve Turkey of its responsibility under the Convention.   In the light of the above and in the absence of a plausible explanation by the Government, the Court considered that the symptoms noted in the medical reports were the result of inhuman and degrading treatment for which the Turkish Government bore responsibility. There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 3.   Concerning Article 5, the Court observed that the Government did not submit any material concerning the applicants’ arrest which would enable it to evaluate its reasonableness. The applicants were arrested while they were on their way to a funeral. There were more than one thousand people in total who were detained and taken to Eyüp Stadium together with the applicants. The Court further observed that there was nothing in the case-file which disclosed the existence of either a protest march or any act which was disturbing to public order.   Having regard to the specific circumstances of the case and the lack of explanation on the part of the Government concerning the incident, the Court considered that the applicants were not detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence nor to prevent their committing an offence, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c). The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 5.   The Court awarded the applicants EUR 26,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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.