CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; 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 } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   614 19.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DİRİL v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Diril v. Turkey (application no. 68188/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the disappearance of the applicants’ relative; a violation of Article 2 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ relative; a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) in that the applicants’ relative had disappeared after being arrested; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 30,000 euros (EUR) jointly to Apro and Meryem Diril and EUR 5,000 each to Süleyman, Can, Yakup and Dilber Diril for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 5,000 to the six applicants jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Apro Diril, his wife, Meryem Diril, and their children, Süleyman, Can, Yakup and Dilber, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960, 1956, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1987 respectively and live in Istanbul.   Mr Diril maintains that his son Zeki and his son’s cousin were arrested by gendarmes in May 1994. The applicants have had no news of Zeki since.   Zeki Diril and his cousin İlyas Diril were allegedly arrested on 13 May 1994 at about 4 p.m. during an identity check. They were transferred to Uludere gendarmerie station, where Zeki was taken into police custody and İlyas was released on account of his young age. Two reports were drawn up on the subject and signed by the Uludere gendarmerie commander.   Following a petition by the missing persons’ relatives, the authorities opened an inquiry. To that end, they obtained statements from relatives of the applicants and from other people named by them. The public prosecutor asked the gendarmerie units concerned to produce the custody records concerning the missing persons and, having noted certain contradictions, sought additional information on the matter. In view of the reluctance and/or failure of the gendarmes to produce the necessary documents and explanations, the public prosecutor was unable to shed light on the circumstances in which the applicants’ relative had been held in police custody.     On 27 July 2000 the Ministry of Justice stated that Zeki and İlyas had been arrested in connection with an identity check; İlyas had been released the same day on account of his young age and Zeki had been released after checks had been carried out, although there was no mention of this in the records. Since the failure to draw up a report on the subject was not attributable to the gendarmerie commander in question, there was no reason to prosecute him.   The applicants have had no news of Zeki since his arrest more than 12 years ago.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 February 2001 and declared partly admissible on 29   September   2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained that their close relative had been the victim of an extrajudicial execution. They relied in particular on Articles 2, 5 and 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   As regards Zeki’s disappearance It appeared from the evidence in the file that Zeki had been arrested by gendarmes from Uzungeçit and transferred on 14 May 1994 to Uludere gendarmerie station. Although the Government had maintained that Zeki had been released after being detained in police custody, they had not submitted any evidence to substantiate their account. The only evidence to that effect was the statement given by the Uludere gendarmerie commander some six years after the events. More than 12 years had passed without any information emerging as to Zeki’s whereabouts and fate after his transfer to Uludere gendarmerie station. The Court therefore considered that there was sufficient evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants’ relative had not been released after his time in police custody.   More than 12 years had passed since Zeki had been arrested by the security forces for allegedly providing support and assistance to the PKK. In the general context of the situation in south-east Turkey at the material time, it could by no means be ruled out that the detention of such a person might be life-threatening. The Court referred in that connection to its previous findings that defects undermining the effectiveness of criminal-law protection in the south-east region during the period in question had permitted or fostered a lack of accountability of members of the security forces for their actions.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that Zeki had to be presumed to have died following his detention. Since no explanation had been provided as to what had occurred after his detention, it considered that responsibility for his death was attributable to Turkey and held that there had been a violation of Article 2.   As regards the investigation into Zeki’s disappearance The Court observed a number of deficiencies in the conduct of the investigation. Firstly, the public prosecutor had not sought to obtain statements from the gendarmes in Uzungeçit who had arrested the applicants’ relative or from the gendarmes in Uludere, where he had been transferred. An examination of the gendarmes in question would have confirmed or refuted the Government’s allegation that Zeki had been released on 14   May 1994. Furthermore, no criminal proceedings had been instituted to identify those responsible for Zeki’s disappearance, despite the public prosecutor’s request to that effect. The Criminal Affairs Department of the Ministry of Justice had not granted permission for criminal proceedings to be brought against the Uludere gendarmerie commander, although the fact that Zeki had been transferred to the Uludere gendarmerie station had been established in a report signed by the commander and Zeki had been reported missing ever since.   In those circumstances, the Court concluded that the Turkish authorities had not conducted a adequate and effective investigation that would have shed light on the circumstances of the applicants’ relative’s disappearance. It therefore held that there had been a further violation of Article 2 on that account.   Article 5   The fact that Zeki had been detained was not disputed, although the parties differed as to the date of his arrest. The Court noted that there was no official trace of his release and that the Government had not provided any credible or substantiated explanation as to what had happened to him after his transfer to Uludere gendarmerie station.   The Court considered that an unexplained disappearance of this kind amounted to a particularly serious breach of the right to liberty and security of person. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5.   Article 13   The Court considered that the authorities had been required to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives. It considered that Turkey had fallen short of its obligation to conduct such an investigation and held that there had been a violation of Article 13 on that account.   Article 14   The Court considered that the applicants’ allegations under Article 14 were unfounded and that the evidence in the file did not disclose any breach of that provision. It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 14.   ***   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.