CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 31 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   647 31.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT YILMAZ v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Dilek Yılmaz v. Turkey (application no. 58030/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant while she was in police custody; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 4,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses, less the EUR   701 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Dilek Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.   The applicant was arrested on 7 October 1995, on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation, and taken into police custody. On 12 October 1995, when she was released from police custody, the applicant was examined by a doctor who noted a 3 cm area of bruising on the inside of her left elbow.   In January 1996 the applicant complained to Istanbul State Security Court that she had been subjected to ill-treatment. Subsequently, in November 1998, she contended that while in police custody she had been hung up by her arms, subjected to electric shocks, hosed down with cold water and sexually assaulted.   On 13 January 2000 the public prosecutor discontinued criminal proceedings against the 12 police officers in whose custody the applicant had been detained for insufficient evidence. That decision was upheld by the President of Kırklareli Assize Court.   In the meantime, on 11 March 1997, the applicant was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 25 April 2000 and declared partly admissible on 3 November 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Rıza Türmen (Turkish), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant submitted that she had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and had not had an effective remedy in that regard. She relied on Articles 3, 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court observed that where a person was injured in police custody while entirely in the charge of police officers any injury occurring during that period gave rise to strong factual presumptions.   It noted that when the applicant was released after five days in police custody she was examined by a doctor who recorded a 3 cm area of bruising on her left elbow. It has not been established that that bruising could have been caused before her arrest, regard being had in particular to the fact that no medical examination was carried out at the beginning of her detention and to the fact that the investigation conducted in the case had not made it possible to identify its cause.   In that connection, the Court reiterated that strict application, right from the beginning of a deprivation of liberty, of fundamental safeguards – such as the right to request an examination by a doctor of one’s choice in addition to any examination required by the police authorities, and access to a lawyer and family member, backed up by the prompt intervention of a judge – could lead to the detection and prevention of ill-treatment which might be inflicted on prisoners, for whom the authorities were responsible.   In the light of all the information submitted to it, and in the absence of any plausible explanation by the Turkish Government, the Court considered that Turkey bore responsibility for the applicant’s injury.   It accordingly held that while in police custody Ms Yılmaz had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment which had constituted a breach of Article 3.   Articles 6 and 13   The Court decided to examine the applicant’s complaint about the lack of an effective remedy from the standpoint of Article 13 only.   Following the applicant’s complaint, an investigation had been opened in the course of which statements were taken from the applicant and the police officers concerned, but not from the doctor who had examined her or from the inspector whose name she had given. That investigation, which had not explained the origin of the applicant’s injury and had not enabled those responsible to be identified and charged, had ended with a discontinuation order.   The Court accordingly 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.