CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 février 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 } .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 } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA88F4219 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   131 27.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT AKPINAR AND ALTUN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey (application no. 56760/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the killing of Seyit Külekçi and Doğan Altun; a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the incident which led to the death of Seyit Külekçi and Doğan Altun.   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been: no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in relation to Seyit Külekçi and Doğan Altun,     and, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants themselves.   The Court further held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine separately whether there had been a procedural violation of Article 3.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 20,000 euros (EUR), each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,930 (less the EUR   715 granted by way of legal aid) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Tamiş Akpınar and Fevzi Altun, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1957 and 1949 and live in Aydın (Turkey) and Australia respectively.   The application concerns the killing of Tamiş Akpınar’s brother, Seyit Külekçi, and Rıza Altun’s son, Doğan   Altun, the alleged mutilation of their corpses by the security forces and the alleged absence of an effective investigation into the applicants’ claims.   On 14 April 1999 Seyit Külekçi and Doğan Altun were killed by the security forces in the course of an armed clash which occurred in the Yeşilalan village of Turhal, in Tokat. According to the scene of incident report, security forces set up an ambush in Yeşilalan in order to capture members of the TKP-ML/TIKKO (the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist ‑ Leninist/ Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army). Following the incident, officers from the Turhal gendarmerie command took the corpses to the Turhal gendarmerie command’s yard. The bodies had been identified as those of Seyit Külekçi and Doğan Altun.   On 15 April 1999 post mortem examinations were carried out on the deceased. According to the report which was drafted, Doğan Altun had received nine bullets to his head, shoulders, chest and legs and half of his left ear had been cut off. Seyit Külekçi had received eight bullets to his head, shoulders, arms, chest, abdomen and lumbar region. Both of his ears had been cut off.   At the applicants’ request an investigation was opened into allegations that their relatives had been tortured before death or that their corpses had been mutilated by the security forces. In October 2000 certain Gendarmerie officers were charged with “insulting” the corpses. In January 2001 Turhal Criminal Court of First Instance suspended the criminal proceedings on the basis that they would be re-activated if the defendants committed further intentional offences within five years. No appeal was filed against that decision.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 March 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), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the use of force employed by the security forces against Seyit Külekçi and Doğan Altun had been disproportionate in the circumstances of the case and resulted in their unlawful killing. The applicants further alleged a violation of Article 3 in that their relatives’ bodies had been “tortured”, either before or after their deaths. They complained under the same head about the emotional distress which they had suffered when they had seen the state of the corpses. The applicants finally contended that the investigation initiated into their complaints had been ineffective.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   Given the unclear circumstances of the case, the Court was unable to establish “beyond reasonable doubt” that Seyit Külekçi and Doğan Altun had been deprived of their lives by the security forces as a result of a use of force which was more than absolutely necessary, within the meaning of Article 2 § 2. It therefore concluded that there had been no violation of Article 2 concerning the killing of the two men.   As regards compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 2, in considering the admissibility of the application the Court had found that the authorities had failed to conduct an independent and impartial official investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicants’ relatives. Furthermore, the Court’s inability to establish a complete picture of the circumstances of the case was due to the lack of an effective investigation. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 concerning the lack of an effective investigation.   Article 3   As regards the first limb of the applicants’ complaint under this head, namely the allegation of a violation of Article 3 on account of the act of mutilation itself, the Court noted that it was undisputed that the ears of Seyit Külekçi and Doğan Altun had been cut off, in whole or in part, by the time their bodies were returned to the applicants.   The Court therefore found it established that the mutilation of the bodies occurred while they were in the hands of the State security forces, but was unable to determine that the mutilation had occurred before death. With reference to previous cases concerning similar events, the Court concluded that Seyit   Külekçi’s and Doğan Altun’s ears had been cut off after they had died. In accordance with the approach in earlier cases the Court found   that the human quality was extinguished on death and, therefore, the prohibition on ill-treatment was no longer applicable to corpses, despite the cruelty of the acts concerned. It followed that there has been no violation of Article 3 on this account.   The Court observed that the applicants had been presented with the mutilated bodies of their relatives. The applicants, who were the sister and father of the deceased, could claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 and the Court had no doubt that the suffering caused to them as a result of this mutilation amounted to degrading treatment contrary to Article   3. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 3 in relation to the applicants themselves.   The Court did not deem it necessary to make a separate finding under Article 3 in respect of the alleged deficiencies in the investigation, in view of its finding under Article 2 that the State authorities had failed to provide an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicants’ relatives.   Judge Fura-Sandström expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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 Convention, 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.