CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 22 juin 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s97C4B4C1 { width:44pt; 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   367 22.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Three Chamber judgments concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Hüseyin Karakaş v. Turkey (No. 2) (application no. 69988/01), Köylüoğlu v. Turkey (no. 45742/99) and Uçkan v. Turkey (no.   42594/98). (The judgments are available only in French.)   In each of these cases the Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the treatment to which the applicants had been subjected while in police custody;   In the cases of Hüseyin Karakaş v. Turkey (No. 2) and Köylüoğlu v. Turkey , the Court also held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   In the case of Uçkan v. Turkey , the Court also held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security court.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded 10,000 euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage to Mr Karakaş and Mr Uçkan, and EUR 5,000 to Mr Köylüoğlu. It awarded EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses (less the EUR 715 received in legal aid) to Mr Karakaş, and EUR 1,500 (less the EUR 630 received in legal aid) to Mr Uçkan.   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are three Turkish nationals. Hüseyin Karakaş and Muhittin Köylüoğlu were born in 1968 and 1961 respectively and live in Istanbul. Esat Uçkan was born in 1959 and, at the material time, was in Bergama Prison (Turkey).   Hüseyin Karakaş On 10 April 1996, following an operation against the PKK, Mr Karakaş was arrested and taken into police custody. On 20 April 1996 he was the subject of a medical examination which found no trace of violence on his body. He was examined a second time by a doctor on 24 April 1996. The second report, while finding no traces of violence, noted that the applicant complained of pain and numbness in his arms and shoulders. The same day the applicant confessed, but maintained that the confession had been obtained by the use of violence. In particular, he alleged that he had been subjected to “Palestinian hanging” (hanging by the arms) and to electrical shocks.   After being transferred to Bayrampaşa Prison, the applicant was examined by a doctor who found that he had several injuries to his arms, signs of a scabbed wound on the right side of the stomach and bruising to the right leg, pain in his toes, both shoulders and arms and numbness in both hands.   The applicant lodged complaints in 1996 and 2000 alleging ill-treatment, which resulted in findings that there was no case to answer.   On 30 May 2001 Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of membership of an armed terrorist gang and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment.   Köylüoğlu Mr Köylüoğlu, a lawyer by profession, is founder and member of several human rights associations. He was arrested following an identity check on 7 February 1998. The same day he lodged a complaint against the police officers who arrested him, alleging ill-treatment. In particular, he alleged that he had been stripped, struck on the head and threatened with being killed. The police officers, meanwhile, lodged a complaint for resistance of authority and insult.   The same day the applicant was examined by a doctor who found tenderness in the area of the right ear. A second examination noted a two-centimetre swelling to the left side of the back of the head and tenderness and swelling to the right ear. The applicant was released the following day, on 8 February 1998.   The applicant was prosecuted for insulting members of the security forces in the exercise of their duties and was acquitted on 15 May 1998. In April 2000 the proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaint against the police officers were discontinued.   Uçkan Mr Uçkan was arrested and taken into police custody on 28 March 1997 on suspicion of belonging to the illegal armed organisation DHKP/C (People’s Revolutionary Liberation Party/Front) and of involvement in bomb attacks. According to the report on his arrest, the applicant had injured himself slightly on the right cheek in attempting to flee. The same day and the following day he was taken to hospital, but refused to be examined.   On 30 March 1997 the applicant began to pass blood in his urine and was taken to casualty. The resulting medical report stated that he had several scratches and bruises to his head and feet, injuries to the ankles and the right foot and extreme tenderness in the breast and scrotum areas.   The applicant told the doctor at Masina medical centre that he had been beaten and electrocuted while in police custody. The medical report drawn up on that occasion found that the applicant had superficial grazing and bruising to the legs, forehead and cheeks, and extreme tenderness in the area of the testicles. After being transferred to Bergama Prison the applicant was examined by a doctor, who found several grazes and bruises on his back, waist and feet and on his left leg. The doctor also observed blood in the applicant’s urine and a build-up of fluid in the testicles and scrotum.   The proceedings concerning the complaint lodged by the applicant in 1997 alleging ill ‑ treatment ended in a finding that there was no case to answer. The applicant lodged a second complaint, which resulted in 1998 in a decision not to prosecute.   On 20 November 1997 the applicant was found guilty of membership of an illegal armed organisation and was sentenced to 14 years and seven months’ imprisonment.   2.     Summary of the judgments [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained of the treatment to which they had been subjected while in police custody. Mr   Karakaş and Mr Köylüoğlu also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Mr Uçkan relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court 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. It was therefore incumbent on the Government to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused and to adduce evidence establishing facts that cast doubt on the victim’s account, especially if that account was supported by medical evidence.   In the Karakaş case the Court observed that the doctor in Bayrampaşa Prison had noted several injuries to the applicant’s body. The Court further noted that the injuries were consistent with the after-effects of the ill-treatment described by the applicant, and that the fact that they did not pre-date his detention in police custody had not been disputed.   In the case of Köylüoğlu the Court noted in particular that the applicant had been examined on the night of his arrest and that the medical reports had found tenderness and swelling to the left side of the back of his head and the right ear. There was nothing in the case file to bear out the authorities’ assertion that those injuries had been caused by the applicant’s resisting arrest.   In the Uçkan case the Court noted that, in the immediate aftermath of his arrest, the applicant had not been the subject of any medical examination worthy of the name. It was therefore difficult to argue that the events giving rise to his injuries had taken place prior to his arrest. A mere reference to an injury to the cheek in the report on his arrest was not sufficient to absolve the Turkish Government from responsibility. Having regard to all the evidence before it and the lack of a plausible explanation from the Government, the Court could not but conclude that the injuries noted in the medical reports had been caused by treatment for which Turkey bore responsibility.   Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously in the three cases, that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 6 § 1 In the case of Uçkan , the Court reiterated that, for civilians, the fact of having to answer charges under the Criminal Code before a state security court composed in particular of a military judge gave them a legitimate ground for entertaining doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the court. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 13 In view of its finding with regard to Article 3, the Court considered that the Turkish authorities had been obliged to conduct an effective investigation into the events complained of by the applicants.   In the Karakaş case the Court noted in particular that the failure to conduct further medical examinations had deprived the applicant of the fundamental guarantees applying to persons in detention. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court did not consider that the investigation could properly be described as thorough and effective. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   In the Köylüoğlu case the Court observed that the administrative council of the province of Istanbul had not granted leave to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. As a result, the proceedings had been discontinued without various witnesses called by the applicant having given evidence. Accordingly, the investigation could not be considered to have been effective and likely to lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the events in question. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   ***   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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.