CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 août 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 } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   463 8.8.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT HÜSEYIN ESEN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Hüseyin Esen v. Turkey (application no. 49048/99).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the torture inflicted on the applicant while in police custody; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention; a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), on account of the length of the applicant’s detention pending trial; a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court); a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Hüseyin Esen, is a 48-year-old Turkish national who lives in Ankara.   On 9 September 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of belonging to the illegal armed organisation MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party) and was taken into police custody at the headquarters of the anti-terrorism branch of Istanbul Security Directorate.   The applicant alleged that, while in police custody, he was ill-treated by police officers attempting to extract a confession from him. The officers struck him, hung him by the arms, hosed him with water, issued death threats to him and administered electric shocks. He had then, under duress, signed a statement confessing to membership of the illegal organisation and involvement in its activities.   On 18 September 1996 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Istanbul Institute for Forensic Medicine, who noted red bruises on his chest ranging in size from 0.2 by 0.5 cm to 0.3 by 1.5 cm, and scab-covered lesions of between 1.5 by 3 cm and 1.5 by 5 cm in his armpits. The doctor prescribed seven days’ sick leave for the applicant. The marks in question were consistent with the allegations of ill-treatment made by the applicant.   The same day the applicant was brought before a judge, who ordered his detention pending trial. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, who was charged with involvement in armed action aimed at destroying the constitutional order and replacing it with a State based on Marxist-Leninist principles.   The applicant made several requests to be released. These were rejected by Istanbul State Security Court, which based its decisions on the contents of the case file, the evidence and the nature of the offence. However, the applicant was released on 30 January 2002.   On 31 January 2003 the state security court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. That decision was set aside, and the case is currently pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.   In the meantime, on 14 October 1996, the applicant and 16 co-defendants lodged complaints alleging ill-treatment on the part of the seven police officers who had questioned them in police custody. On 25 April 2002 the assize court characterised the acts as torture and sentenced the police officers to terms of imprisonment ranging from 11 months and 20 days to one year and two months, and ordered that they be temporarily suspended from their posts. On 5 May 2004, however, the Court of Cassation declared the criminal prosecution time ‑ barred.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 May 1999 and declared partly inadmissible on 9 September 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .           3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained of the treatment to which he had been subjected while in police custody and the ensuing lack of accountability. He further complained of the length of his detention pending trial, his inability to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed and the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Articles 3, 13, 5 and 6 § 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that the medical report drawn up at the end of the applicant’s time in police custody reported signs of ill-treatment and prescribed seven days’ sick leave for the applicant. It noted further that the Istanbul Assize Court had characterised the acts to which the applicant had been subjected as torture under Article 243 of the Criminal Code.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the violence inflicted on the applicant, taken as a whole and having regard to its duration and purpose, had been particularly serious and cruel and capable of causing “severe” pain and suffering. It should therefore be classified as torture. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court observed that an investigation had been launched in response to the complaint lodged by the applicant, which had resulted in the conviction of the police officers concerned for torture. However, the criminal prosecution had become time-barred after five years, with the result that the police officers’ convictions had been quashed. The Court therefore had to determine whether the investigation and the criminal proceedings had been conducted with diligence and whether the judicial proceedings could be said to have been “effective” or not.   In that connection, the Court noted that the assize court had waited almost five years after the complaint was lodged before delivering its judgment convicting the police officers, while the Court of Cassation had taken two years to examine the case. The Turkish Government had not produced any evidence to justify the lack of headway made by the proceedings.   The Court considered that the judicial authorities had a duty to do everything in their power to ensure that the criminal proceedings were completed before the limitation period expired. A prompt response by the authorities in cases involving allegations of ill-treatment could generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts. In the applicant’s case, the Court observed that the police officers had been able to act with complete impunity in spite of the concrete evidence against them established by the court of first instance.   In the circumstances, the Court took the view that the Turkish authorities could not be considered to have acted promptly to ensure that the police officers implicated did not enjoy virtual impunity. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 5 §§ 3 and 4   The Court noted that the applicant had been held in detention pending trial for five years and four months. However, in the written grounds of the orders for his continued detention, the judicial authorities had failed to specify how the risk that the applicant might abscond or destroy evidence could have persisted for so long. Furthermore, although “the state of the evidence” could be understood as indicating the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt and, in general, those circumstances could be relevant factors, they could not on their own justify the continuation of the detention for such a long period. Consequently, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court further observed that all the requests for release made by the applicant had been rejected for identical reasons. It considered that the applicant had not had an effective remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention pending trial. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that the proceedings in issue had lasted for more than nine-and-a-half years to date. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   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.