CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 4 mai 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 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sB9001C55 { width:182.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE9343112 { width:98.11pt; display:inline-block } .sB53C0AEC { width:38.81pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   258 4.5.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final [1] . (The judgments are only available in French.)       Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment) Akkurt v. Turkey (application no 47938/99)   Violation of Article 13   Saygılı v. Turkey (no. 57916/00)   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment)   The applicants, Ali Akkurt and Ali Haydar Saygılı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1959 and 1973 respectively and live in Istanbul.   On 10 February 1994 Mr Akkurt was arrested by the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul security police and taken into police custody. At the end of his custody period, on 24   February 1994, the applicant was examined by a doctor, who observed that his body showed no signs of ill-treatment but that the applicant felt some pain. Later that day, when examined again by a doctor, Mr Akkurt was found to be suffering from back pain. After being remanded in pre-trial detention the applicant underwent a further medical examination on 2 March 1994. The ensuing report recorded pain at the tips of the toes on his right foot, obtusion and pain around the armpits, weakness and tingling in the right leg and lumbago.   Mr Saygılı was arrested and taken into police custody on 9 December 1996, on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation. At the end of his custody period, on 16 December 1996, he was seen by a doctor, who observed old traces of bruising on his left shoulder.   The applicants complained to the prosecutor that they had been ill-treated while in police custody. Mr Akkurt stated in particular that he had been subjected to electric shocks at the tips of his toes and to “Palestinian hanging”, having his hands tied together behind his back and then being suspended by his arms. Mr Saygılı claimed that he had also been suspended by his arms, had been blindfolded, had received blows to his genitals and had had his neck squeezed to the point of suffocation. Criminal proceedings were brought against the police officers responsible for their police custody and the applicants joined those proceedings to claim damages. The proceedings resulted in the acquittal of the police officers concerned.   The applicants complained of ill-treatment they had sustained while in police custody and of the lack of a remedy under Turkish law by which to complain of such treatment. They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that when a person was injured while in police custody, when they were entirely under the supervision of police officers, strong presumptions of fact would arise in respect of injuries occurring during that period.   The Turkish Government had failed to provide any explanation for the cause of the injuries observed on the applicants’ bodies, after Mr Akkurt had spent 14 days in custody and Mr Saygılı seven days, without any access to a lawyer. Whilst the injuries on Mr Saygılı’s body did not quite correspond to those that would have been left by the ill-treatment complained of, those observed on Mr Akkurt’s body were consistent with the treatment that he described to the prosecutor.   The Court considered that it had not been established, in particular given the failure to have a medical report drawn up at the start of police custody, that the injuries in question had occurred during the arrest or had been caused by previous actions of third parties.   Having regard to all the particulars available to it and to the fact that the Government had failed to provide any plausible explanation, the Court found it established in both cases that the injuries described in the medical reports had originated in inhuman treatment for which Turkey bore the responsibility. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously in both cases, that there had been a violation of Article 3.   The Court did not find it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 in the Saygılı case and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 in the Akkurt case.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded Mr Akkurt 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses, and awarded Mr Saygılı EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   285 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 ).   Press Contacts   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)   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. [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.