CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 février 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 } .s8ED60C92 { margin-left:30.6pt; 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 } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sE1FBB432 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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   049 3.02.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BİYAN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Biyan v. Turkey (application no. 56363/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant’s treatment while in police custody; a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention on account of the fact that the court which had tried and convicted the applicant was not impartial and independent.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 9,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage on account of the violation of Article 3 and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 685 he had already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. The Court found that its judgment in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant for the violation of Article 6 § 1. It reiterated in that connection that in cases in which it found that an applicant had been convicted by a court that was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be a retrial without delay by an independent and impartial court.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Lazgin Biyan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970. He is currently detained in Aydin Prison (Turkey).   Some of the facts were in dispute.   The applicant was arrested on 12 March 1997 on suspicion of being a member of a secret committee set up to aid and abet the PKK. He was held at Aydın police headquarters. While in custody he was examined a number of times by a doctor. The doctor did not note any evidence of injury in his reports following examinations conducted early in the afternoon of 12   March, shortly before midnight the same day and at approximately 3 p.m. on 14 March. Mr   Biyan made a confession on 14 March 1997.   At 8.45 a.m. on 17 March 1997 the applicant signed a record that had been drawn up at police headquarters in which he acknowledged that a series of visible injuries to his body had been deliberately self-inflicted. Shortly afterwards, at 9.25 a.m., he was examined by a forensic doctor, who found a number of parallel linear ecchymotic lesions 15 centimetres long and 22   cm wide to the abdomen, back and chest. That afternoon the applicant was examined by another doctor, who also noted a number of longitudinal lesions to the body and grazes to the forehead and head.   Mr Biyan stated that while in police custody, his clothes had been removed and he been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment including electric shocks, baton and cable blows and dousing with cold water. He complained further that in order to extract a confession his captors had insulted him and threatened to kill him.   The Turkish Government maintained that the applicant had used his jacket buttons and trouser zip to inflict his injuries in a panic attack.   On 21 May 1998 the Izmir State Security Court sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment for membership of an illegal organisation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the Court on 25 June 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Renate Jaeger (German), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints Relying on Article 3, the applicant complained of the treatment he had received in police custody. He further complained under Article 6 that he had been denied a fair trial, in particular by the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of the Convention   The Court reiterated that when a person was injured in police custody while in the sole control of police officers it was for the Government to furnish a plausible explanation as to the cause of the injuries.   The Court noted that the medical certificates were contradictory and that the only explanation given by the Government for the discrepancy was the statement that the injuries were self-inflicted in the record of 17   March 1997, which the applicant had signed. That record had been drawn up when the applicant was in police custody and signed, inter alia , by the custody officers. The Court found that the Government’s explanation was neither plausible nor satisfactory in view of the applicant’s vulnerability as a prisoner in police custody without access to legal advice and of the fact that he had informed the State Security Court as soon as he appeared before it that he had signed the record under duress.   It questioned whether it would have been possible for the applicant to inflict such injuries to various parts of his body, including his back, with the buttons and zips of his clothing.   In those circumstances, the Court found that Mr Biyan had received his injuries as a result of his treatment in police custody. Noting that his injuries were consistent with ill-treatment amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   The Court reiterated that a civilian who was required to answer criminal charges in a state security court that included a military judge on its bench had legitimate grounds for concern about its independence and impartiality. It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   With regard to the other complaints of procedural unfairness, the Court stated that a court which had been found not to be independent and impartial could not, under any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial for persons within its jurisdiction. Consequently, it held that it was unnecessary to examine those other complaints.   ***   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]     The judge elected for Liechenstein. [3]     This summary drafted by the Registry is not binding on the Court.