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 } .sCFF87D65 { margin-left:27.6pt; padding-left:8.4pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .s8408AAD1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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   051 3.02.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ZÜLCIHAN ŞAHIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Zülcihan Şahin and Others v. Turkey (application no. 53147/99).   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 treatment suffered by Zülcihan Şahin, Arzu Kemanoğlu, Devrim Öktem, Özgür Öktem, Sinan Kaya, İsmail Altun, Müştak Erhan İl, Okan Kablan and Bülent Gedik   ; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention in the cases of Zülcihan Şahin, Arzu Kemanoğlu, Devrim Öktem, Özgür Öktem, Sinan Kaya, İsmail Altun, Müştak Erhan İl, Okan Kablan and Bülent Gedik   ; no violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in the case of Sevgi Kaya   ; no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken together with Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention the Court awarded Özgür Öktem, Müştak Erhan İl, Okan Kablan, Zülcihan Şahin and Devrim Öktem, 15,000 euros (EUR) each and Bülent Gedik, Sinan Kaya, İsmail Altun and Arzu Kemanoğlu, EUR 10,000 each for personal injury and non-pecuniary damage. It also made a joint award to all the applicants except Sevgi Kaya of EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The ten applicants, Zülcihan Şahin, Sevgi Kaya, Arzu Kemanoğlu, Devrim Öktem, Özgür Öktem, Sinan Kaya, İsmail Altun, Müştak Erhan İl, Okan Kablan and Bülent Gedik, are Turkish nationals who were born between 1971 and 1980 and live in Istanbul.   After being taken into custody at Istanbul police headquarters following a police operation against an illegal organisation, the TKEP/L (Communist Party of Work/Leninist), the applicants lodged complaints alleging ill-treatment by the custody officers. The applicants were charged with attempting to change or modify the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey in whole or in part or to carry out a coup d’etat against the National Assembly or to prevent it by force from carrying out its functions. They were further charged with membership of an armed gang.   On 7 July 1997 the applicants, who with the exception of Sevgi Kaya were in custody, were taken to the courthouse in Istanbul in order to give evidence against the five police officers who had been prosecuted as a result of their complaint. There followed a clash between the applicants, who were wearing handcuffs, and the security forces guarding them.   The parties disagree about what caused the security forces to resort to violence. The applicants say that they were assaulted knowingly and for no legitimate reason. The Turkish Government say that the police officers used force after being attacked by the prisoners and to prevent their absconding.   Following that incident, all the applicants except Sevgi Kaya were examined by the Bayrampaşa prison doctor. At the public prosecutor’s request, they were examined by a doctor at the Eyüp Institute of Forensic Medicine. The medical reports state that the applicants presented ecchymoses, in particular to the head, grazes, oedema and cuts, in particular to the wrists. They were certified as being unfit for work for periods of up to ten days.   An administrative inquiry was opened after a fresh complaint by the applicants alleging ill-treatment, but the Government have provided no information on its outcome. The applicants were also prosecuted for resisting the security forces. Those proceedings are still pending in the Turkish courts.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 October 1997 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 7 March 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been knowingly assaulted in the courthouse for no legitimate reason by members of the security forces. They alleged that there had been no effective remedy available to them in the domestic courts, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. They also affirmed that, because of their political opinions, their complaints had not been properly investigated, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Articles 3 and 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of the Convention   The material before the Court did not show that Miss   Kaya had been involved in the incidents concerned, or even that she was in the courthouse at the material time. She had not provided any details of her alleged ill-treatment or any prima facie evidence in support of her allegations. Having no evidence before it to establish that Miss Kaya had been subjected to ill-treatment, the Court held that there had been no violation of Articles 3 in her case.   As regards the other applicants, the Court attached particular importance to the circumstances in which their injuries had been sustained. It noted in that connection that the security forces had initially intervened to prevent the applicants from chanting slogans or making victory salutes to the members of their families and of the press assembled on the premises. Supervision of the trial, which had attracted the attention of the press, had been entrusted to specially trained, experienced officers, and the applicants were handcuffed and unarmed and so did not constitute any threat to the officers. Furthermore, the Government’s claim of aggression on the part of the applicants was denied by the evidence of the victims families, who were not called upon to testify to the administrative inquiry.   Even supposing that recourse to the use of force was justified, neither the number of injuries sustained by the applicants nor their severity could not be consistent with the use of only such force as was rendered strictly necessary by the applicants’ conduct. Consequently, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13 of the Convention   The public prosecutor ruled that he had no jurisdiction to investigate the incidents and forwarded the file to the relevant provincial authorities, who opened an administrative inquiry.   The Court noted, however, that it had previously held that inquiries by administrative committees could not be regarded as independent.   The applicants were not given access to the case file during the inquiry and had no means of questioning witnesses or of presenting their own version of events.   In those circumstances, the Court found that the inquiry could not be regarded as effective and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 14 of the Convention   Since the applicants had not adduced any evidence to support their allegation that the inquiry into their complaints was closed on account of their political opinions, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 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 drafted by the Registry is not binding on the Court.