CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   417 26.7.2005     Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ŞİMŞEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Şimşek and Others v. Turkey (application nos. 35072/97 and 37194/97).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article   2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the deaths of the applicants’ relatives; a violation of Article   2 (right to life) of the Convention concerning the inadequate investigations into their deaths; a violation of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy); no violation of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination); no violation of Article   17 (prohibition of abuse of rights).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded 30,000   (euros)   EUR jointly to six of the applicants and EUR   30,000 to each of the others in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are 22 Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul. They are all relatives of people who died following incidents which took place in the Gazi and Ümraniye districts of Istanbul in 1995.   The applicants and the Turkish Government have submitted differing accounts of the events which took place.   According to the applicants, on 12 March 1995, a group of unidentified people opened fire from a taxi on five cafés situated in the Gazi neighbourhood killing one person and injuring others. The attackers then killed the taxi driver and fled.   Local residents complained about the indifference displayed by police officers after the shooting and a group marched to the local police station. The police set up barricades with panzers and, according to the applicants, attacked the group with their truncheons and the butts of their weapons.   Early the next morning, as a meeting was taking place between community leaders and the authorities, two panzers approached the demonstrators and began firing at them, killing one person and injuring others. Thousands of people from the surrounding neighbourhoods came to take part in the demonstration. Stones and coins were thrown at the police barricades.   Later that morning police again fired on the protesters killing more people and injuring others. Some demonstrators were shot running away. The applicants maintained that the police prevented demonstrators from taking the wounded to hospital.   In the afternoon the police attacked a crowd attending the funerals of two people who had died during the previous incidents. Military reinforcements were called to the area and a curfew was imposed. The applicants stated that the group did not protest against the soldiers and that a total of 15 people were killed and 276 injured.   On 15 March 1995 in Ümraniye, a large crowd which had gathered came across barricades which had been set up by the police and some demonstrators threw stones. According to the applicants, uniformed and plainclothes police officers began firing at the crowd without warning, killing and injuring more people. No one in the group returned fire. None of the police officers were killed or injured.   According to the Turkish Government, during the incidents at Gazi, the security forces verbally warned the demonstrators and then used pressurised water and batons to disperse the crowd. When this failed to work, they fired warning shots into the air. However, the crowd continued to walk towards the security forces and attacked the panzers with fire bombs. They maintained that during the Gazi riot, 13 people died and 195 people (152   residents, 36   police officers and seven soldiers) were wounded. During the incidents at Ümraniye, armed men in the group started shooting towards the security forces and the crowd. The security forces fired warning shots in the air. They also stated that while the wounded were being taken to hospital, the crowd continued shouting slogans and throwing stones from behind shelters. Seven ballistic reports revealed that none of the bullets that had been recovered from the bodies of the victims matched the weapons of the security forces on duty during the two incidents.   On 11 April 1995 criminal complaints concerning both incidents were filed by relatives of those who had been killed. They alleged that police officers had killed their relatives using disproportionate force and opened fire on the crowds without warning. According to complainants, the police deliberately used firearms against the demonstrators from the Gazi district who belonged to the Alevi sect.   In July 1995 and March 1998 the public prosecutor filed an indictment against 22 police officers who had been on duty during the Gazi demonstrations. Ultimately, one police officer was found guilty of killing three people and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; another was found guilty of killing one person and given a one year and eight month suspended prison sentence. They were both debarred from public service for three months. An investigation which began in April 1995 concerning the killing of four people is still pending. In April 1995 the families of those who had died were paid 150,000,000   Turkish Liras (the equivalent of EUR 2,800) in compensation by the Social Collaboration and Solidarity Encouragement Fund ( Sosyal Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışmayı Teşvik Fonu ).   In April 1997 and November 1998 Üsküdar prosecutor’s office decided not to prosecute the police officers who had been on duty on the day of the Ümraniye incident. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 February and 12 May 1997 respectively and transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. They were joined on 20 April 1999 and declared admissible on 4 May 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained, in particular, that their relatives were killed as a result of the use of disproportionate force by the police and that the ensuing investigations were inadequate. They also complained that they were discriminated against on account of their religious beliefs. They relied on Articles 2, 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The deaths of the applicants’ relatives The European Court of Human Rights observed that the police officers who were on duty during the Gazi and Ümraniye incidents enjoyed great autonomy of action, and took decisions, while under pressure and in a state of panic, which they would probably not have taken had they had the benefit of proper training and instructions. The Court therefore found that the absence of a clear, centralised command increased the risk of police officers shooting directly at the crowd. Furthermore, it was the responsibility of the security forces, who had been aware of the tense situation in both districts, to provide the necessary equipment, such as tear gas, plastic bullets, water cannons, to disperse the crowd. In the Court’s view, the lack of such equipment was unacceptable.   In conclusion, the Court considered that, in the circumstances of the applicants’ case, the force used to disperse the demonstrators, which caused the death of 17 people, was more than absolutely necessary and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 2.   The investigation into the killings The Court observed that the domestic authorities started three separate investigations in relation to the Gazi and Ümraniye incidents. However there were striking omissions in the conduct of those inquiries.   The Court observed that the steps taken by the domestic courts were dilatory and half-hearted. At no stage of the proceedings did they examine the overall responsibility of the authorities for the deficiencies in the conduct of the operation or their inability to ensure a proportionate use of force to disperse the demonstrators. In addition, the two officers found guilty received relatively light sentences. The investigation into the deaths of four of those killed had been and was still pending after more than ten years and did not appear to have produced any tangible results.   Finally, as regards the investigation concerning the Ümraniye incidents, the Court considered that, faced with a serious allegation concerning the disproportionate use of lethal force by the police, the public prosecutor should have shown greater initiative. The Court found it striking that the authorities only managed to collect eight bullets after the incident. Furthermore, the ballistic reports only dealt with the comparison of those bullets with the handguns of the police officers who had been on duty that day. There was no indication as to what sort of guns had been used. It also appeared from the documents submitted to the Court that the public prosecutor had accepted the police officers’ account of the facts without question.   Against that background, the Court found that the domestic authorities did not conduct prompt and adequate investigations into the killing of the applicants’ relatives. The manner in which the Turkish criminal justice system operated in response to the tragic events of March 1995 failed to establish the full accountability of State officials. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 concerning the failure to provide a prompt and adequate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicants’ relatives.   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 The Court observed that the applicants’ grievance under Article   6 §   1 was inextricably bound up with their more general complaint concerning the manner in which the investigating authorities treated the death of their relatives and the repercussions which that had had on their access to effective remedies for their grievances. It was accordingly appropriate to examine the applicants’ Article   6 complaint in relation to the more general obligation under Article 13 to provide an effective remedy in respect of violations of the Convention.   The Court noted that a violation of Article 2 could not be remedied exclusively through a payment of compensation to a victim’s relatives. As the Court had found the Turkish Government to be responsible under Article 2 for the death of the applicants’ relatives, the applicants’ complaints were “arguable” for the purposes of Article 13. The authorities therefore had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicants’ relatives. However, no effective criminal investigation could be considered to have been conducted in accordance with Article 13, the requirements of which were broader than the obligation to investigate imposed by Article 2. The Court found, therefore, that the applicants had been denied an effective remedy in respect of the death of their relatives and thereby access to other available remedies such as a claim for compensation. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Articles 14 and 17 Finding the applicants’ allegations that they were discriminated against on account of their religious beliefs to be unsubstantiated, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Articles 14 or 17.   ***   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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.