CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 31 mai 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 } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   289 31.5.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Six Chamber judgments concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] :   Akdeniz v. Turkey (no. 25165/94) Çelikbilek v. Turkey (no. 27693/95) Kişmir v. Turkey (no. 27306/95) Koku v. Turkey (no. 27305/95) Toğcu v. Turkey (no. 27601/95) Yasin Ateş v. Turkey (no. 30949/96)   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been the following violations [2] of the European Convention on Human Rights:   Akdeniz Article 2 (right to life) concerning the presumed death of applicant’s son, Article 2 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into her son’s disappearance and presumed death, Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning the applicant’s son, Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) concerning the applicant, Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the applicant’s son, Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the applicant and her son;   Çelikbilek   Article 2 in that Turkey was liable for the death of applicant’s brother, Article 2 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the murder of the applicant’s brother, Article 13;   Kişmir   Article 2 in that Turkey was liable for the death of the applicant’s son, Article 2 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the killing of the applicant’s son, Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning the applicant’s son, Article 13;   Koku   Article 2 in that Turkey failed to protect the life of the applicant’s brother, Article 2 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s brother, Article 13;   Toğcu Article 2 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son, Article 13;   Yasin Ateş   Article 2 in that Turkey was liable for the death of the applicant’s son, Article 2 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the killing of the applicant’s son, Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 13 .   The Court also held unanimously in five cases (all but Akdeniz ) that Turkey had failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) to provide the Court with the facilities necessary to establish the facts in the case.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants amounts ranging from 3,500 euros (EUR) to EUR 13,500 for non-pecuniary damage and between EUR 8,000 and EUR 15,000 for costs and expenses, as well as EUR 16,500 to each applicant in the cases Akdeniz and Kişmir for pecuniary damage.   For the heirs of the men who had died, the Court also awarded between EUR 10,000 and EUR 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and (in the cases Koku , Çelikbilek and Yasin Ateş ) EUR 60,000 for pecuniary damage. (All six judgments are available only in English).     1. Summary of the facts   The applicants, Mevlüde Akdeniz, Abdurrahman Çelikbilek, Hayriye Kişmir, Mustafa Koku, Hüseyin Toğcu and Yasin Ateş, are all Turkish nationals of Kurdish origin, born in 1955, 1951, 1948, 1963, 1944 and 1931, respectively. At the time of the events in question, they were living in south-east Turkey. Yasin Ateş died on 19   May 2001. His son continued the application in his deceased father’s name.   Each case concerned the disappearance and/or death of the applicant’s son or brother in the south-east region of Turkey in 1994. The facts of each case are disputed by the parties.   Akdeniz The applicant alleged that her son Mehdi Akdeniz was beaten and then taken into the custody of soldiers who came to her village in the Sesveren hamlet of Karaorman village, near Diyarbakır, on 20 February 1994 and burnt down the villagers’ houses. She maintained that nothing had been heard from her son since that time.   The Turkish Government maintained that no operation was carried out in the Kulp-Sesveren area on 20   February 1994, that the applicant’s son was not taken into custody or detained and that, between 1992 and 1993, the Sesveren hamlet was attacked by members of the PKK, proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law.   The European Court of Human Rights found it established that the applicant’s son was detained by gendarme soldiers.   Çelikbilek The applicant alleged that his brother Abdulkadir Çelikbilek had been abducted by plain clothes police officers on 14 December 1994 and was subsequently killed by them.   The Government denied the involvement of any State agents in the kidnap and subsequent killing of Abdulkadir Çelikbilek and argued that he was killed as a result of a mafia-type vendetta.   The Court found that Abdulkadir Çelikbilek was arrested and detained by agents of the State and that the Government had failed to account for his death.   Kişmir It was not in dispute that the applicant’s son Aydın Kişmir was arrested and placed in detention on 6 October 1994 and that he died while in the custody of the police on 12 October 1994. The applicant also alleged that her son was tortured and killed intentionally while in police custody; the Turkish Government denied that.   The Court found that a six cm long injury on Aydın Kişmir’s head, which required stitches, must have been caused while he was in police custody. The Court also found that the Government had not adequately accounted for the death of Aydın Kişmir while in detention and that their responsibility for his death was engaged.   Koku The applicant alleged, in particular, that his brother Hüseyin Koku – an active member of the pro-Kurdish Democracy Party (DEP) and its successor the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP) – was abducted from the centre of Elbistan in October 1994 by armed police officers, taken into police custody and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment before being killed by agents of the State.   According to the Government, State security units had not, in any way or for any reason, abducted or taken into custody Hüseyin Koku, who had, they alleged, probably been killed in relation to an extramarital affair with a married woman.   The Court was unable to make a finding as to who might have been responsible for the abduction and subsequent death of Hüseyin Koku.   Toğcu The applicant claimed that his son Ender Toğcu, who was a hotel and club manager in Diyarbakır unconnected to the PKK or any other similar organisation, disappeared on 29 November 1994 and that he had been taken into custody by security forces or abducted by agents of the State or with their acquiescence.   The Government denied any involvement of State agents in Ender Toğcu’s disappearance, submitting that most people who had allegedly disappeared in the south-east had joined the PKK.   The Court was unable to establish what took place on 29 and 30 November 1994 in view of both the contradictory information provided by the applicant and the incomplete investigation file submitted by the Government. The Court was therefore unable to make a finding as to who might have been responsible for the disappearance of Ender Toğcu.   Yasin Ateş   The applicant alleged that his son Kadri Ateş was arrested on 13 June 1995 and transferred to Diyarbakır Security Directorate where he was tortured. He subsequently died, having been   either executed or used as a decoy.   The Government denied that Kadri Ateş had been killed in police custody and maintained that he was shot and killed in crossfire between the PKK and security forces.   The Court concluded that the Government had failed to account for the killing of Kadri Ateş.     2. Procedure and composition of the Court   Akdeniz was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 August 1994,   declared admissible by the Commission on 1   December 1997 and transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1999.   Çelikbilek , Kişmir , Toku , Toğcu and Yasin Ateş were lodged with the Commission respectively on 13 June 1995, 31 March 1995, 14 April 1995, 25 May 1995 and 13 December 1995. All five cases were transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. They were declared admissible, respectively, on 22 June 1999, 14 December 1999, 26 June 2001, 14 September 1999 and 19 October 1999.   Please refer to each judgment for the composition of the Court, on: www.echr.coe.int.     3. Summary of the judgments [3]   Complaints The applicants all complained under Articles 2, 3, 13 and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). In addition, all but Çelikbilek and Kismir complained under Article 5. Akdeniz also relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Toğcu on Articles 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) and 34 (right of individual petition).   The Court’s Decision   Article 38 In the five following cases the Court noted with concern that the Turkish Government had failed to supply documents and information requested by the Court, in particular, the following: Çelikbilek – the complete investigation file, an on-site report and photographs of Abdulkadir Çelikbilek’s body; Kişmir   – the investigation file, photographs of Aydın Kişmir’s body and 11 other important documents; Toku – 15 important documents, photographs of Hüseyin Koku’s body and information on the outcome of the investigation into his death; Toğcu – detention reports, certain custody ledgers, the complete investigation file and five key documents; Yasin Ateş – the full case file; in particular five important documents.   In all five cases the Court observed that the Turkish Government had not advanced any explanation for their omissions in response to the Court’s requests for relevant documents and information. Accordingly, it found that it could draw inferences from the Government’s conduct in that respect. Furthermore, the Court found that the Government had fallen short of their obligation under Article 38 § 1(a) to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court in its task of establishing the facts.   Article 2   Concerning the disappearances and/or deaths   Akdeniz The Court was satisfied that Mehdi Akdeniz must be presumed dead following an unacknowledged detention by the security forces. Consequently, Turkey’s responsibility for his death was engaged. Noting that the authorities had not provided any explanation as to what occurred following Mehdi Akdeniz’s detention, and that they did not rely on any ground of justification in respect of any use of lethal force by their agents, it followed that liability for his death was attributable to the Turkish Government. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Mehdi Akdeniz.   Çelikbilek,   Kişmir   and   Yasin Ateş   Having established that the Turkish Government had failed to account for the deaths of Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, Aydın Kişmir and Kadri Ateş the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 concerning their deaths in all three cases.   Koku The Court found that Hüseyin Koku, as the chairman of HADEP’s Elbistan branch, belonged to a category of persons who ran a particular risk of falling victim to disappearance and murder. Dozens of politicians working for HADEP and its predecessors were being kidnapped, injured and killed at around the time of Hüseyin Koku’s death. His life was therefore at more real and immediate risk than other persons at that time. It followed, therefore, that the domestic authorities were expected, not to prevent the disappearance of the applicant’s brother (which had already taken place), but to take preventive operational measures to protect his life which was at risk from the criminal acts of other individuals. Concluding that the authorities had failed to take the reasonable measures available to them to prevent a real and immediate risk to the life of Hüseyin Koku from materialising, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2.   Concerning the investigations   In all six cases the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 arising out of the authorities’ failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of the disappearances and/or deaths of the applicants’ relatives.   Article 3   Akdeniz Concluding that Mehdi Akdeniz was subjected to ill-treatment, which, at the least, reached the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the treatment to which he had been subjected.   The Court also found that the applicant suffered, and continues to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of her son and of her inability to find out what had happened to him. Finding that the manner in which her complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant.   Kişmir The Court concluded that the Government had failed to account for the injuries found on Aydın Kişmir’s body (the injury on his head and marks and bruises identified in an autopsy report of 12 October 1994) and that his injuries were caused by ill-treatment which could, at least, be qualified as inhuman. The Court held, unanimously, there had been a violation of Article 3, on account of the inhuman treatment to which the applicant’s son was subjected prior to his death.   Article 5   Akdeniz Finding that Mehdi Akdeniz was held in unacknowledged detention with a complete absence of the safeguards contained in Article 5, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5.   Yasin Ateş   The Court observed that none of the necessary safeguards were observed during and after the arrest of the applicant’s son, which meant that the deprivation of his liberty was not amenable to independent judicial scrutiny to secure the accountability of the authorities. In the light of those failures and contradictions concerning the arrest of the applicant’s son – which also contributed to discrediting the Government’s attempt to account for his death – the Court concluded that the applicant’s son was deprived of his liberty in an arbitrary manner and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   Article 13   In all six cases the Court observed that the Turkish authorities had also had an obligation under Article 13 to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearance and/or death of the applicants’ relatives, but that no effective investigation had been conducted.     Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 13 in each case.   The Court also found, in five cases (all but Akdeniz ), that the applicants had been denied access to any other available remedies at their disposal, including a claim for compensation.     Judge Costa expressed a partly concurring opinion in the case Çelikbilek , Judge Mularoni submitted partly dissenting opinions in the cases Koku , Toğcu and Yasin Ateş and Judge Gölcüklü submitted a partly dissenting opinions in the cases Akdeniz and Kişmir .   ***   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] Please refer to the judgments concerning the applicants’ complaints where the Court did not find a violation. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.