CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;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 } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   613 19.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ÖKTEM v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Öktem v. Turkey (application no. 74306/01).   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 first applicant while in police custody; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the first applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Mahmut Öktem and his wife, Memnune Öktem, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1956 and 1954 respectively and live in Istanbul.   On 26 February 1997 the applicants, who are teachers at the Paşakapısı primary school in Üsküdar and active members of the Eğit-Sen trade union, were arrested and taken into police custody in the course of an operation against an illegal organisation, the TKEP/L (Communist Labour Party of Turkey/Leninist).   On 3 March 1997 the applicants were examined by a doctor, who noted that their general state of health was good. He did not find any signs of blows or violence on Mrs Öktem’s body but observed that Mr Öktem had reduced movement in his hands and bruises on his shins. Later that day the applicants were brought before a judge, who ordered their release.   After the applicants had lodged a complaint alleging torture, criminal proceedings were instituted against the officers in whose custody they had been held. Mr Öktem complained that he had been beaten and his wife alleged that she had been subjected to psychological pressure in that the police officers had made her husband pass by her cell before they had questioned her, with the aim of intimidating her.   On 14 November 2001 Istanbul Assize Court acquitted the four police officers on the charges concerning Mrs Öktem but found one of them guilty of torturing Mr Öktem and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment; it also prohibited him from holding a post in the civil service for one year, on the basis of Articles   243 and 59 of the Criminal Code. However, it suspended the sentence. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Assize Court for fresh consideration.   On 9 February 2004 the Assize Court found all the police officers guilty of torture within the meaning of Article 243 of the Criminal Code in respect of Mr Öktem with a view to extracting a confession from him, and sentenced them to ten months’ imprisonment, in addition prohibiting them from holding posts in the civil service for ten months. It nevertheless suspended their sentences.   The applicants again appealed to the Court of Cassation. However, on 17 March 2005 the Court of Cassation, while acknowledging that the offence of torture had been made out, discontinued the proceedings as the limitation period had expired.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 May 2001 and declared partly inadmissible on 1 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), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that they had been tortured while in police custody. They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).         Decision of the Court   The Court declared the application inadmissible in respect of Mrs Öktem.   Article 3 The Court observed that the medical certificates indicated that the first applicant had sustained significant injuries after his time in police custody, and the fact that they did not predate his detention had not been disputed. Furthermore, the evidence produced by the parties in the criminal proceedings in the Turkish courts and also before the Court corroborated the first applicant’s version of events as to the severity of the violence inflicted by the police officers. Accordingly, in the light of the evidence before it the Court accepted that Mr Öktem had been ill-treated, as the Turkish courts had found.   Furthermore, the Court observed that Istanbul Assize Court had found that the acts of which Mr Öktem had been the victim amounted to torture, having regard to their intensity and to the fact that such treatment had been intentionally meted out to him by agents of the State in the performance of their duties, with the aim of extracting a confession or information about the offences of which he was suspected. The Court saw no reason to depart from those findings and therefore considered that the violence inflicted on the first applicant, taken as a whole, had been particularly serious and cruel and capable of causing “acute” pain and suffering that amounted to torture.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13 Having regard to the total length of the proceedings, which had lasted more than eight years, the Court considered that the Turkish authorities could not be said to have acted with sufficient promptness and reasonable diligence; consequently, the perpetrators of the acts of violence had enjoyed virtual impunity despite having been found guilty of torture. That was sufficient to show that, on account of the expiry of the limitation period, the criminal remedy had not satisfied the criterion of “effectiveness” for the purposes of Article 13.   There had therefore 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.