CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 janvier 2005

.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 } .sCFF87D65 { margin-left:27.6pt; padding-left:8.4pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s8408AAD1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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   028 25.01.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SUNAL v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Sunal v. Turkey (application no. 43918/98).   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; that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention; that there was no need to examine the complaints under Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 630 which the Council of Europe had already paid in legal aid.   The judgment is available only in French.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Huseyin Sunal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   The applicant was arrested on suspicion of car theft at 8.20 pm on 1 April 1996 and was placed in police custody at the Bostanlı police station. The events that occurred during the applicant’s detention in police custody were disputed by the parties.   Mr Sunal maintained that he had received blows to the head, face and body, and that electric shocks had been administered to different parts of his body, including his tongue; he also claimed that his hands and feet had been bound during his detention.   The Turkish Government submitted that the applicant, who was alleged to be under the influence of alcohol and drugs at the relevant time, had injured himself. He had asked to go to the toilet and had used this occasion to attack police officers; in so doing, the applicant had knocked his head violently against the window of the interview room.   Towards one o’clock in the morning, Mr Sunal was taken to the Karşıyaka civil hospital, where he was examined by a doctor. The latter found that the applicant had a 0.5 cm wound on the parietal region, bruising on the left side of the lips and numerous areas of linear bruising extending from the right shoulder to the lumbar region, as well as several lesions on the left shoulder. The doctor ordered that he be transferred to a forensic medical centre so that an alcohol test could be conducted, but it appeared from the case file that no such examination had been carried out.   Mr Sunal was released without charge at about 4 pm on 2 April. He immediately lodged a complaint against the police officers responsible for his police custody, alleging ill-treatment. On the same day, at the public prosecutor’s request, the applicant was examined by a doctor who found that his body presented, in particular, a saturated wound, 2 cm in size, on the parietal region, two bruises of 1 cm and 3 cm in diameter on the tongue, a bruise under the left eye, swelling on the face, multiple haematomas and bruising on the back, both arms, both wrists and the femoral region. The doctor concluded that his condition required ten days’ sick-leave, and ordered a biopsy of the tongue; this showed “an injury resulting from an electric shock to the tongue”.   On 10 September 1996 the Karşıyaka Administrative Council decided not to bring proceedings against the police officers concerned because there was insufficient evidence of ill-treatment. That decision was upheld by the Izmir Regional Administrative Court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 10 August 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 1 October 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 while in police custody. He further complained that the authorities had not provided an effective response to his allegations of ill-treatment, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), and also alleged a violation of Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of the Convention   The Court reiterated that where a person sustained injuries during police custody, when he or she was entirely under the control of police officers, the Government was under an obligation to provide a plausible explanation for how those injuries were caused. However, the Government’s explanations in the present case were not plausible.   Even supposing that the applicant had injured himself, that incident could only explain the injuries mentioned in the first medical report. However, 15 hours later, a forensic medical examiner found other injuries which had not been recorded during the first examination. The Government provided no explanation for this contradiction in the medical records and no plausible explanation as to the cause of the second set of injuries. Nor did they provide any explanation as to the injury found on the applicant’s tongue, for which the investigating authorities had furthermore not sought to establish a cause.   In addition, the Court found it regrettable that the allegation that the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol and drugs was not backed up by medical evidence, even though an alcohol test had been ordered by a forensic medical examiner.   In those circumstances, the Court concluded that the Government had not satisfactorily established that Mr Sunal’s injuries had been caused by anything other than the treatment meted out during his detention in police custody. Taking the view that the injuries sustained by the applicant indicated abuse which amounted to treatment that was both inhuman and degrading, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13 of the Convention   The Court reiterated its earlier finding that investigations carried out by the administrative councils could not be considered as independent.   In the present case, the case file had been unavailable to the applicant throughout the administrative investigation and he had had no means at his disposal to question witnesses or to submit his own version of events. For its part, the administrative court had ruled on the sole basis of the written case file.   In those circumstances, the investigation carried out in this case could not be regarded as effective, and the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.   Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention   Having regard to the findings of a violation that it had just reached, the Court considered that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 6 and 14.     ***   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.