CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 décembre 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   754 5.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT EMİRHAN YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Emirhan Yıldız and Others v. Turkey (application no. 61898/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards Selvi Dönmez, Leyla Lüle and Meral Şahin; no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards Emirhan Yıldız.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded 10,000 euros (EUR) to Selvi Dönmez and Leyla Lüle, and EUR 7,000 to Meral Şahin, for non-pecuniary damage. The Court awarded EUR 1,285, jointly, to the three applicants for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Emirhan Yıldız, Selvi Dönmez, Leyla Lüle and Meral Şahin are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1974, 1973 and 1977 respectively and live in Istanbul.   In March 1998 they were arrested by police officers of the Anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate in connection with an investigation into the activities of TKP/ML (Turkish Communist Party / Marxist-Leninist), an illegal organisation in Turkey.   The applicants maintained that while they were in custody they were blindfolded, threatened with death, sexually harassed, beaten, suspended and hosed with pressurised cold water, as well as being stripped naked and prevented from going to the toilet.   A medical report drawn up on 1 April 1998 by a doctor from the Forensic Medicine Department of the Istanbul State Security Court found no signs of ill-treatment on the body of Meral Şahin. As to the remaining applicants, the doctor noted bruises and hyperaemia on the bodies of Ms Dönmez and Ms Lüle and scabbed wounds on Mr Yıldız’s wrist.   On 1 April 1998, they were brought before the public prosecutor at Istanbul State Security Court where they denied the accusations against them and, in particular, the contents of their statements given to the police. Ms Lüle and Ms Şahin claimed that they had signed their statements under duress.   On the same day Mr Yıldız was released. No criminal proceedings were brought against him. The other applicants were brought before a judge at Istanbul State Security Court. Ms Lüle and Ms Şahin were further remanded in custody and Ms Dönmez was released.   Ms Lüle and Ms Şahin were examined by the prison doctor at Ümraniye Pison on 2 April 1998. The doctor noted lesions on the backs of both applicants and weakness in their arms.   The Fatih public prosecutor instigated an investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment but decided not to prosecute the accused police officers due to lack of evidence.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 February 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicants complained that the treatment to which they had been subjected while they were held in police custody amounted to torture and inhuman treatment.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Sevgi Dönmez, Leyla Lüle and Meral Şahin The Court observed that none of the applicants was examined medically following the respective arrests. However, medical reports drawn up either at the end of their stay in custody or at the beginning of their detention in prison showed that they had sustained several injuries. The findings of the medical reports, in the Court’s opinion, matched at least the applicants’ allegations of having been beaten. The Court observed that the Government failed to provide an explanation as to the manner in which the injuries noted in the applicants’ medical reports were sustained by them.   Considering the circumstances of the case as a whole, and the absence of a plausible explanation from the Government as to the cause of the injuries sustained by those applicants, the Court found that their injuries were the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Emirhan Yıldız The Court observed that the medical report drawn up by the doctor showed that the applicant only bore a scabbed wound on his wrist at the end of his stay in police custody and that those findings did not match the applicant’s description of his ill-treatment. The Court was aware of the lack of details in the medical report. However, bearing in mind that he was released the very same day, the Court considered that the applicant could have provided both the authorities and the Court with medical evidence which would have contradicted the findings of the medical report contained in the case-file.   In view of those circumstances, the Court considered that the evidence before it did not enable it to find beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment. Accordingly it found that there had been no violation of Article 3.   ***   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.