CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   401 15.7.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT FATMA KAÇAR v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Fatma Kaçar v. Turkey (application no. 35838/97).   The Court held:   unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) on account of the death of Halis Kaçar; by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure by the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of his death; by six to votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court, by six votes to one, awarded Halis Kaçar’s widow and their three children 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 625.04 received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Fatma Kaçar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   At approximately 7.30 a.m. on 11 March 1994 her husband was shot and killed as he left their home. An investigation was launched immediately: evidence was gathered at the scene, a statement taken from a witness and a post-mortem carried out that revealed that Halis Kaçar had died of gunshot wounds to the back.   In December 1998 the police arrested a man called İdris Hasar in connection with an operation mounted against the illegal terrorist organisation Hizbullah. He admitted carrying out the killing with one Ubeydullah on the organisation’s orders. Criminal proceedings are pending against him before Diyarbakır Assize Court. In June 2001 the police arrested another suspect, Hasan Gündüz, who said in a statement that he and a man called Mehmet Emin Güçlü had received orders from Hizbullah through an intermediary known as Saïd to kill Halis Kaçar. Criminal proceedings are currently pending against Hasan Gündüz in Diyarbakır State Security Court.   In a judgment of 17 October 2002, Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted Mehmet Emin Güçlü and sentenced him to life imprisonment for, among other offences, his involvement in the murder of Halis Kaçar. The Court found that the killing had been carried out by Hasan Gündüz on the orders of Saïd, while Mehmet Emin Güçlü had supervised and covered the operation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 February 1997 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that her husband was the victim of an extrajudicial execution. She further complained that the official investigation into her husband’s death was inadequate and that she was not been informed of the outcome of the criminal investigation. She relied on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The circumstances in which the applicant’s husband died The Court said that, in assessing the evidence, it adopted the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” but that, in accordance with its settled case-law, such proof could follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact.   In the light of the material before it, the Court considered that the allegation that Halis Kaçar had been killed by or with the complicity of State agents was based more on conjecture and speculation that on reliable evidence. In those circumstances, it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that Turkey’s responsibility was engaged in the murder of the applicant’s husband. It therefore held that there had been no substantive violation of Article 2.   Alleged failure to hold an effective investigation Although the investigation was started immediately after Halis Kaçar’s death, the case file showed that the Turkish authorities had failed to conduct it diligently and that there had been a number of periods of unexplained inactivity. The Court was also extremely surprised to note that the public prosecutor’s office had taken only one statement. Furthermore, neither the deceased’s family nor their representative appeared to have been kept informed of progress in the investigation and the public prosecutor’s office itself seemed to have had difficulties in verifying what point the police had reached in their preliminary inquiries.   Although the authorities had launched an investigation, not all the suspects had been traced. The criminal proceedings that had been instituted against those suspects who had been found were still pending at first instance some ten years later, without any explanation from the Government.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court held that the investigation by the Turkish authorities into Halis Kaçar’s death could not be considered to have been effective. It therefore held that there had been a procedural violation of Article 2.   Article 13   As the Court had already stated, the authorities were under an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of Halis Kaçar’s death. However, the investigations that had been started several years previously into the involvement of various suspects had yet to be concluded. In those circumstances, Turkey could not be considered to have conducted an effective criminal investigation. The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 13.     Judge Türmen expressed a partly dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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 by the Registry does not bind the Court.