CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 12 juillet 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 } .s5EFD7C60 { width:46.76pt; 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 } .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   398 12.7.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final. [1] (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 Soner Önder v. Turkey (application no 39813/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Soner Önder, is a Turkish national of Chaldean origin who was born in 1974. At the material time he was a student at Istanbul Technical University.   The applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on 25 December 1991. According to the arrest report, he was stopped with a Molotov cocktail in his hand while taking part in a demonstration in Bakırköy (Istanbul), during which banks and shops were vandalised. 12 people were killed and 12 others injured in the incident.   On 8 January 1992 the applicant and five others underwent a medical examination. The report drawn up following the examination stated that no signs of blows or violence had been observed on any of them. On the following day the applicant was brought before a judge, to whom he claimed that he had been forced to confess through the use of threats. He was placed in pre-trial detention.   At the request of the public prosecutor’s office and Istanbul Prison, the applicant underwent a further medical examination on 17 January 1992. According to the report drawn up on that occasion, he was suffering from subjective pain in both arms and his body, and there was severe swelling on the left testicle, which was more painful than the other testicle. The doctor considered that the pain was not life-threatening and prescribed three days’ sick-leave.   Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation and for throwing a Molotov cocktail into a shop. In a judgment of 12 December 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court sentenced the applicant to death, commuting the sentence to 20 years’ imprisonment in view of the fact that he had been a juvenile at the material time. Lastly, in accordance with Article 59 § 2 of the Criminal Code, concerning mitigating circumstances, it reduced the sentence to 16 years and eight months. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment on 24 November 1997.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated while in police custody. He further complained under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Istanbul State Security Court’s lack of independence and impartiality, of the unfairness of the proceedings before it and of the length of the proceedings against him.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the applicant had undergone a medical examination, jointly with five other detainees, only on the penultimate day of his 15 days in police custody. The medical report drawn up on that occasion stated that there were no signs of blows or violence on his body. However, the second medical report, drawn up while he was in pre-trial detention, noted signs of pain and incapacity.   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 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 symptoms observed had resulted from treatment for which Turkey bore responsibility. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).   The Court further noted that it had held in many similar cases that civilians standing trial for offences under the Criminal Code had legitimate reason to fear that a state security court which included a military judge among its members might not be independent and impartial. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   With regard to the other complaints concerning the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not under any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to those subject to its jurisdiction. It accordingly considered that there was no need to examine those complaints.   Lastly, the Court observed that the proceedings in question had lasted five years and 11 months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period satisfied the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on that account.   The Court awarded the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.   ***   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. 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.