CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 janvier 2006

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   6 10.1.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT YAVUZ v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Yavuz v. Turkey (application no. 67137/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Türkan Yavuz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul.   On 17 May 1997 the applicant and her husband were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion that they were members of an illegal organisation, the Turkish Communist Party/Marxist-Leninist Party. According to the search protocol drafted on the same day by the police officers and signed by the applicant, the police found a number of documents, guns, ammunition and dynamite in the applicant’s flat. The report mentioned that the applicant and her husband resisted arrest.   On 19 May 1997 the applicant was interrogated by two police officers. She denied any involvement with the TKP/ML or knowledge of the existence of the materials found during the search.   On 21 May 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted the presence of a 2x8 cm hyperaemia below her right shoulder blade and a swelling of 3 cm in the neck area and recorded that she was experiencing pains in her neck. The same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at İstanbul State Security Court. She stated that, during her custody, four or five police officers had sexually harassed her by touching her breasts and buttocks. She was released that day and no criminal proceedings were brought against her.   On 22 May 1997 the public prosecutor transferred the investigation file to the Fatih Public Prosecutor’s Office.   In her testimony to the Fatih public prosecutor, the applicant submitted, in particular, that when she was taken to the police station, she was separated from her husband and blindfolded. She claimed that she was attacked by police officers who pulled her hair and hit her, particularly between her shoulders. She maintained that they stripped her naked in front of her husband and that she was molested and sexually harassed. She claimed that, during her interrogation, one of the police officers threatened her with rape, while all the officers insulted her verbally and also threatened to accuse her of murder if she refused to co-operate. She also stated that it was impossible for her to provide witnesses since she was held in custody, incommunicado.   On 3 November 1997 Fatih public prosecutor submitted a report to the İstanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office in which he considered that criminal proceedings should be started against the police officers in question.   On 19 November 1997 criminal proceedings were started against the officers, under Article 243 § 1 of the Criminal Code which prohibits ill-treatment.   On 1 June 1999 they were acquitted, the trial court having found, among other things, that the injuries mentioned in the medical reports could have been sustained during the arrest of the complainants. The court considered that the evidence before it did not suffice to convict the accused police officers. Its judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 February 2001 and declared admissible on 6 December 2005.   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 applicant complained that the treatment to which she was subjected while she was held in police custody amounted to torture and inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. She further complained, under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13, that she did not have a fair hearing and that she did not have an effective remedy in respect of her complaints of torture and ill-treatment.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that the medical report drawn up by the doctor showed that the applicant presented injuries at the end of her stay in police custody. The findings of the medical report, in the Court’s opinion, matched at least the applicant’s allegations of having been hit on the back. The Court did not find it necessary to assess whether the other allegations of sexual or psychological abuse were true, particularly in view of the difficulty of proving such treatment.   The Court observed that the parties did not dispute the findings of the medical report. However, they put forward different versions as to how the applicant had actually sustained them. The Court noted that the applicant was not examined medically following her arrest which, in the Court’s view, would have been the appropriate step to take by police officers who had had to resort to using force during arrest. Moreover, no mention was made in the arrest protocol as to the nature of the force used against her and the medical report for the applicant’s husband revealed no findings of ill-treatment despite the fact that they were arrested together. The Court was therefore not satisfied with the Government’s explanations as to the manner in which the injuries found at the end of detention were sustained by the applicant.   Reiterating the authorities’ obligation to account for injuries caused to people within their control in custody, the Court considered that the acquittal of the police officers could not absolve the State of its responsibility under the Convention.   Considering the circumstances of the case as a whole, and the absence of a plausible explanation from the Government as to the cause of the injuries sustained by the applicant while she was held in custody, the Court found that her injuries were the result of treatment for which the Turkish Government bore responsibility.     There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 3.   Articles 6 and 13 The Court considered that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 and Article 13 should be examined from the standpoint of Article 13 alone.   The Court observed that an investigation into the applicant’s allegations was initiated promptly by the public prosecutor’s office. This investigation led to the committal for trial of two police officers identified by the public prosecutor as those who took part in both the arrest and interrogation of the applicant. Moreover, the applicant was able to effectively participate in those criminal proceedings which resulted in the acquittal of the police officers for lack of evidence.   Nonetheless, the Court observed that there were shortcomings in the way the investigation and the trial were conducted by the authorities. The applicant was never requested to identify the alleged perpetrators of the ill-treatment prior to the opening of the prosecution and, as a result, the other police officers complained of by the applicant were not identified and committed for trial. In that connection, the authorities failed to secure the testimonies of the other police officers involved in the arrest of the applicant or that of potential eye-witnesses of her arrest. Moreover, at no stage of the proceedings was the veracity of the applicant’s allegations of sexual harassment scrutinized by the authorities despite the fact that the applicant was detained incommunicado for three-and-a-half days and interrogated by police officers, who were all men.   In view of the above, the Court concluded that both the investigation and the criminal proceedings did not provide the thorough, effective remedy required by Article 13 and that there had, therefore, been a violation of Article 13.   ***   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.