CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 janvier 2007

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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   34 16.01.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT VELİ TOSUN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Veli Tosun v. Turkey (application no. 62312/00).   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 on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant during the period he spent in police custody; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment; a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) on account of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Veli Tosun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965. He is currently detained in Diyarbakır Prison.   The applicant, who was suspected of belonging to the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation, was arrested in possession of a false identity card on 22 July 1999. He made a confession while held in police custody in the premises of the Istanbul Security Directorate.   On 23 July 1999 the applicant was transferred to Diyarbakır and underwent a medical examination, which found a bruise measuring 15 x 5 cm on his left humerus. On the same date, he underwent a second medical examination which found a bruise covering the entire left biceps. Finally, on 30 July 1999 a doctor from the Diyarbakır medical centre examined the applicant and found no trace of blows or violence on his body.   The applicant was then brought before a court, which ordered that he be placed in pre-trial detention. Again on 30 July 1999, the applicant was examined by a doctor who noted a bruise measuring 15 x 6 cm on his left arm.   In August 1999 the applicant’s two representatives lodged a complaint against the police officers responsible for their client while he was in police custody, alleging ill-treatment. Criminal proceedings were opened, in the course of which the applicant was examined by a doctor and witness statements were taken. Some of the accused gendarmes were acquitted on 13 December 2004 but the case is still pending before the Turkish courts with regard to the other gendarmes involved.   At the same time, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for membership of an illegal armed organisation which aimed to destroy the country’s territorial integrity; those proceedings are currently pending before the Turkish courts.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged at the European Court of Human Rights on 19 September 2000 and declared admissible on 6 September 2005.   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]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 3 and 13, the applicant complained about the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected and of the ineffectiveness of the investigation conducted into his allegations. He also alleged, under Article 5 § 3, that he had not been tried within a reasonable time.       Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that the medical examinations undergone by the applicant revealed that he had presented significant lesions at the end of the period in police custody; no one had claimed before the Court that those lesions preceded the police custody. In the absence of an explanation from the Turkish Government as to the cause of the lesions, the Court considered that Turkey bore responsibility for these injuries. Accordingly, it concluded that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article   3.   Article 13   The Court decided to examine the complaint that there had not been an effective and sufficient investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment under Article 13.   The Court considered that the failure to conduct the investigation with the necessary promptness and diligence had resulted in virtual impunity for the presumed perpetrators of the acts of violence and had rendered the criminal remedy ineffective. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 5 § 3   The Court noted that the applicant had to date been detained for more than seven years and four months. Although “the state of the evidence” could be understood as indicating the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt and, in general, those circumstances could be relevant factors, in the applicant’s case they could not in themselves justify his continued detention for such a long period. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 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.