CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 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 } .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 } .sED4A036D { width:99.75pt; 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 598 17.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GÖÇMEN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Göçmen v. Turkey (application no. 72000/01).   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; 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; a violation of Article 6 §§   1 and 3 on account of the unfairness of the proceedings; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 715 received from the Council of Europe in legal aid for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Sabahattin Göçmen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966. He is currently in Bursa Prison serving a sentence of 18 years and nine month’s imprisonment passed in 1999.   On 29 December 1992 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). While in police custody the applicant admitted being a member of the PKK and confessed to having been involved in illegal activities. He acknowledged, among other things, possessing weapons and raising funds and disseminating propaganda on the organisation’s behalf. In accordance with the legislation in force at the relevant time, he was not allowed access to a lawyer while in police custody.   On 12 January 1993 the applicant underwent a medical examination, which found no traces of violence on his body. The same day he was brought before a judge who ordered his detention pending trial.   On 13 January 1993 the applicant was examined by the Istanbul Prison doctor. According to the report drawn up following the examination, the applicant had reduced movement and pain in the shoulders, elbows and wrists; the report also noted bruising to the buttocks, scabs measuring between 1 and 3 cm to the front of the thighs, two parallel lines of sequellae of bruises ranging in width from 0.5 to 2 cm on the front of the armpits, other bruising to the left femoral area, scratches of between 2 and 3 cm to the upper part of the right knee, below both knees and on the thighs. The applicant also had pains in his legs and substantially reduced mobility, to the point of being incapable of active movement, in both shoulders, arms, lower arms and wrists.   The applicant was prosecuted on the basis of Article 168 of the Criminal Code which makes it an offence to form an armed gang with a view to committing offences against the State and the authorities, and was committed for trial before Istanbul State Security Court. During the proceedings the applicant stated that he been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody in an attempt to extract a confession from him.   On 20 October 1999 the state security court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 18 years and nine months’ imprisonment. The conviction 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 24 May 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained that he had been tortured while in police custody and complained of the unfairness and length of the proceedings leading to his conviction. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 6 (right to a fair trial).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that the medical examination which the applicant had undergone on 12   January 1993, at the end of his time in police custody, had not found any traces of violence on his body. However, according to the report drawn up on 13 January, immediately after he had been placed in detention pending trial, his body showed numerous traces of violence (reduced movement and pain in various parts of the body and a large number of bruises).   In view of all the evidence before it, the Court found it established that that the injuries noted in the second medical report had resulted from treatment for which Turkey bore responsibility. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The applicant had repeatedly informed the authorities that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in connection with the proceedings against him, and had submitted a medical certificate in support of his allegations. That had not been taken into consideration although, under Turkish law, a prosecutor informed of such accusations should have taken immediate action.   The lack of any investigation was sufficient for the Court to conclude that the applicant had not had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 6   Independence and impartiality The Court noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been instituted before a state security court made up of two civilian judges and a military judge. Before the latter’s replacement by a civilian judge some six years and seven months after the proceedings had been initiated, several hearings on the merit had been held, devoted, among other things, to taking evidence from witnesses and establishing the truth of the applicant’s statements, and numerous procedural steps had been taken. Those steps, which had not been repeated subsequently, had all been validated by the replacement judge. In the circumstances, the Court could not accept that the replacement of the military judge before the end of the proceedings had sufficed to dispel the applicant’s reasonable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the court which had convicted him. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Fairness of the proceedings The Court took the view that the procedural guarantees offered in the present case had not prevented the use of evidence obtained in circumstances which amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in the absence of a lawyer and in breach of the privilege against self-incrimination. It reiterated that it had consistently held that the use in criminal proceedings of evidence of that kind obtained in violation of Article 3 raised serious questions as to the fairness of the proceedings. Given that the Court of Cassation had not remedied the defects in question, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §§   1 and 3.   Length of the proceedings The Court observed that the proceedings at issue had lasted for approximately seven years and 11 months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it found that that period was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a breach 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.