CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 juin 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCEF53CDF { width:71.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s3752AF5 { width:32.07pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   354 28.6.2005   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] .     Violation of Article 3 Hasan Kılıç v. Turkey (application no 35044/97)   Violation of Article 13 Hasan Kılıç is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and is currently detained in Bursa Prison (Turkey). On 16 May 1994 the applicant, who was a student at the time, was arrested in an Istanbul café by officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Gayrettepe security police.   The facts of the case are in dispute between the parties.   The applicant maintained that on arresting him, the police officers kicked him, punched him, hit him with a rifle butt and insulted him during the journey to the police station. When he arrived there, he was taken into custody, where he remained for ten days. He alleged that the police officers tortured him during that time in order to obtain a confession that he had been involved in a number of bomb attacks in Istanbul on behalf of the PKK. He claimed that he was stripped, suspended by his arms, given electric shocks, hosed with water after fainting and subjected to falaka – the beating of the soles of the feet with a stick. Among other things, he was also allegedly threatened with rape and death.   On his release from police custody on 25 May 1994 the applicant underwent a medical examination at the Istanbul Institute of Forensic Medicine, which did not reveal any signs of blows or injuries to his body. The Bayrampaşa prison doctor, who examined him on 30 May 1994, observed numbness in the hands and requested a further examination. A fresh examination conducted on 29 June 1994 at the Institute of Forensic Medicine found that the applicant had extensive numbness and pins and needles in both arms, the forearms, the palms of the hands and the little fingers, requiring a five-day period of convalescence.   In July 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint against the police officers on duty during his time in custody. The officers were acquitted by the Assize Court on 15 June 1995 “for lack of decisive and persuasive evidence”.   The Turkish Government denied the applicant’s allegations, submitting that he was a suspected member of the PKK and had been arrested following a tip-off.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant submitted that he had been tortured while in police custody. He also alleged a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that during his ten days in police custody, the applicant had not had access to a lawyer, doctor, relative or friend, or any opportunity to be brought before a court; throughout that time he had been entirely vulnerable to the reprehensible conduct of the police officers, particularly those responsible for questioning him.   The Court had already had occasion to examine similar cases and could not disregard the generally close connection between certain types of ill-treatment and the symptoms observed in a person’s upper limbs, which could consist of loss of feeling, pins and needles or pains. Without being categorical, the Court considered that the medical evidence relied on by the applicant tended to give credibility to his allegation that he had been suspended by the arms.   The applicant had undergone three medical examinations. Although the first one had not revealed anything, the symptoms subsequently observed had worsened between the second and third examinations. The applicant’s medical problems had therefore tended to increase with time and should have been detectable at the time of his release from police custody; failing that, he should have undergone a more thorough neurological examination after the initial diagnosis at the very latest, and received appropriate medical attention.   In the light of the evidence before it, and in the absence of any plausible explanation on the Government’s part, particularly regarding the discrepancies between the three medical reports in the case file, the Court was compelled to conclude that the initial medical examination had not been carried out properly and that the arm injuries observed in the second and third reports had resulted from treatment for which Turkey bore responsibility. Having regard to that finding, the Court considered it unnecessary to assess whether the other allegations of physical or psychological violence were true, particularly in view of the difficulty of proving them in the circumstances of the applicant’s case.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   With regard to the criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant, the Court noted that the trial courts had described his allegations as “abstract”, notably on the basis of a contradiction in his submissions, without ever seeing fit to order additional investigations or an expert opinion with a view to verifying the findings made in the last two medical reports. They had accordingly excluded the possibility of shedding light not only on the cause of the applicant’s symptoms but also on any omissions that might have led to their being observed at such a late stage. In those circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court awarded the applicant 15,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Karakaş and Yeşilımak v. Turkey (no. 43925/98)   No violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicants, Bülent Karakaş and Yılmaz   Yeşilırmak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1977 respectively and live in Istanbul (Turkey).   On 13 August 1994 they were arrested in front of the head office of the daily national newspaper Hürriyet , in connection with a demonstration which the illegal organisation Dev-Sol (Revolutionary Left) were thought to be planning. They were detained at the Bağcılar Security Directorate where, among other things, they alleged that they were beaten on both hands ( el falakası ), insulted and threatened, blindfolded and kept standing facing a wall.   Medical examinations carried out on 17 and 23 August and 7 and 8 September 1994 established that both applicants had bruises and scar tissue on their hands.   The Turkish Government maintained that the applicants sustained those injuries while resisting arrest.   On 17 August 1994 the Bağcılar Security Directorate held a press conference about the arrest of Dev-Sol members, where they gave journalists information about the detainees and allowed them to take pictures.   The following day, the applicants’ names and pictures appeared in articles in two national newspapers, Milliyet and Türkiye , which identified the applicants as members of Dev-Sol who had been planning a demonstration against an article which had appeared in Hürriyet . The police were reported as having seized pamphlets, banners and slings.   On 14 March 1996 the applicants were convicted by Istanbul State Security Court under Article 169 of the Criminal Code (with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation) and Article   5 of the Law on Prevention of Terrorism. They were sentenced to three years and nine months’ and two years and six months’ imprisonment respectively.   The applicants had pleaded not guilty and claimed that they had been subjected to torture and forced to sign false confessions while in police custody.   On 17 April 1996 the applicants’ lawyer lodged an unsuccessful appeal with the Court of Cassation.   The applicants alleged that: they were ill-treated and tortured in police custody; their right to be presumed innocent was violated since, subsequent to their arrest, they were presented as criminals by the police at a press conference; and, they were denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of the military judge on the bench of the state security court which tried and convicted them. They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the various medical reports confirmed only the applicants’ allegations that they had been beaten on their hands. In the absence of a plausible explanation by the Government, the Court considered that the injuries noted in the medical reports were the result of the treatment for which the Turkish Government bore responsibility and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   As it had found in earlier judgments, the Court considered that the applicants’ fears as to the state security court’s lack of independence and impartiality could be regarded as objectively justified and therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1.   Concerning Article 6 § 2, the Court noted that there was no evidence in the case-file to indicate what, if any, declarations were made by the police during the press conference. The Court did not find it established that the police stated that the applicants were guilty of the offences in question or that in the press conference they had otherwise prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authorities. Considering that the applicants’ right to be presumed innocent had not, therefore, been violated, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 2.   The Court awarded each applicant EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,500 (less EUR   685 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe) to both applicants for costs and expenses. (The judgment exists 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. [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.