CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 octobre 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   547 18.10.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT AKDOĞDU v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Akdoğdu v. Turkey (application no. 46747/99).   The Court held unanimously: that there had been no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to the death of the applicant’s son and the nature of the investigation into the circumstances of his death; that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention on account of the treatment inflicted on the applicant’s son during his detention in police custody.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded 9,000 euros (EUR) to Burhanettin Akdoğdu’s heirs for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,350 to the applicant for costs and expenses, less EUR 630   EUR already received as legal aid from the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, İsmail Akdoğdu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Bandırma, Turkey. His son, Burhanettin Akdoğdu, died in 1997, aged 28, while in police custody.   Burhanettin Akdoğdu, who was suspected of membership of the illegal organisation Devrimci Sosyalist İşçi Hareketi (Socialist Workers’ Revolutionary Movement), was arrested by the security forces on 10 December 1997. He was initially placed in police custody in Bursa, then transferred on 12 December 1997 to the premises of the anti-terrorism unit at the Ankara Security Directorate, where he was questioned from 8 p.m. until 11.30 p.m.   On the following day, namely 13 December 1997, the body of Burhanettin Akdoğdu was found at 8   a.m, hanging from the window bars in his cell on a rope made from the unstitched edge of a blanket. The public prosecutor visited the site of the incident at about 10 a.m. and a preliminary investigation was opened. An autopsy was carried out on the same day. The forensic experts concluded that death had resulted from mechanical asphyxia and that there was nothing to suggest that the deceased had been subjected to violence. At the applicant’s request, a second autopsy was carried out on the day following Burhanettin Akdoğdu’s death. It revealed that his body had sustained various bruises and grazes to the legs, especially around the knees, ankle bones and calves. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint.   Statements were taken from the wardens responsible for the premises for police custody and from fellow detainees. The wardens claimed that Burhanettin Akdoğdu had gone to the toilet at 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., information which was confirmed by certain detainees, and that they had observed that he was alive between 5 a.m. and 8 a.m.   On 1 May 1998 the prosecutor issued an order finding that there was no case to answer. The applicant applied unsuccessfully to have that decision set aside.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged before the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 October 1998 and transferred to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. The application was declared admissible on 5 March 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Danute Jočienė (Lithuanian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the circumstances surrounding his son’s death in police custody and the ineffectiveness of the resultant criminal investigation.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   Death of the applicant’s son The Court noted that the applicant’s allegations to the effect that his son had been intentionally killed by police officers were not supported by concrete and verifiable facts and had not been conclusively corroborated by any witness statement or other evidence. In particular, it noted that the autopsy had revealed that death had resulted from mechanical asphyxia by hanging, and that the statements given by the wardens responsible for monitoring detainees in police custody had been corroborated by other detainees.   With regard to the obligation to monitor the detainee, the Court noted that there was no evidence proving that the routine measures in place to prevent the detainee’s suicide had not been followed or that standard monitoring had not been carried out. In addition, there was no relevant evidence suggesting that the police officers should reasonably have foreseen that Burhanettin Akdoğdu would commit suicide and that they should have ensured the continuous presence of a warden in front of his cell or confiscated his blanket. In those circumstances, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   2.   The investigation The Court considered that the detailed preliminary investigation carried out by the judicial authorities in order to establish the wardens’ liability in Burhanettin Akdoğdu’s suicide could be regarded as sufficiently thorough and effective. Accordingly, it found that there had been no violation of Article 2 on this point either.   Article 3   The Court noted that the Turkish Government had provided no explanation for the injuries recorded in the second autopsy report on the applicant’s son, who had been detained for three days prior to his death without access to a lawyer. To a certain extent, those injuries were compatible with claims made by a fellow detainee, who alleged that he had heard that Burhanettin Akdoğdu had been ill-treated during questioning, allegations which had not been challenged by the Government. Consequently, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3.     ***   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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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.