CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 avril 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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   224 12.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GÜVEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Güven and Others v. Turkey (application no. 68694/01).   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 ill-treatment by the prison authorities and gendarmes in Buca Prison on 20 July 1995 and the ensuing inadequate investigation.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 8,000   euros (EUR), each, that is to say a total of EUR 96,000, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The 12 applicants, Ahmet Güven, Ramazan Akdağ, Kadri Sönmez, Metin Göktepe, Neslihan Göktepe, İzzettin Koç, Kadri Issı, Mehmet Kışanak, Rıdvan Karatay, Ali Kemal Yıldız, Yaşar Avcı and Emsihan Karatay, are Turkish nationals who were all detained in Buca Prison (İzmir) at the time of the events.   On 20 July 1995 the applicants, along with ten other prisoners, were taken from their cells to an area of Buca Prison in which they were held before being taken to a hearing at İzmir State Security Court. On refusing to be searched, the applicants alleged that they were attacked by prison administrators, prison warders and gendarmes with truncheons and wooden planks. According to the Government, the applicants had, in order to resist being searched, linked arms, and, as a result, had fallen down some stairs and been injured.   At the hearing before the state security court, the applicants complained that they had been beaten before being brought to the court. Noting the applicants’ condition, the court decided to postpone the proceedings and ordered that they be medically examined with a view to opening an investigation.   Between July and November 1995 doctors examined the applicants and noted in their medical reports that it appeared from the injuries sustained (swelling, red marks, grazes and bruising) that, in most cases, they had received blows to the head and other parts of their body. Yaşar Avcı’s injuries resulted in him being hospitalised. It also appeared from further medical reports that Ahmet Güven, who took part in several hunger strikes, suffered from hypertension and amnesia. He was, however, declared physically capable of taking care of himself in prison.   On 9 April 1996 it was decided that the Director of Buca Prison and his staff would not be prosecuted for alleged ill-treatment.   On 1 May 2000 İzmir Administrative Council also decided not to bring proceedings against the gendarmes who had been responsible for taking the applicants to court.   Further proceedings concerning the disappearance of the case-file investigating the gendarmes’ involvement in the events were terminated on 15 January 2002 without prosecution on account of the statutory time-limit having expired.   The applicants claimed that they had never been informed of the outcome of the proceedings, only learning of İzmir Administrative Council’s decision when the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Satık and Others (no. 31866/96, 10 October 2000). That application had been lodged by the other ten other prisoners who had been injured on 20   July 1995 in Buca Prison.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 October 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that they were ill-treated by the prison authorities and gendarmes in Buca Prison on 20 July 1995 and complained that they were not informed by the national authorities about the outcome of the investigation into their allegations. Mr   Güven further complained about his continued detention despite his medical condition. They relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court considered that the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 13 should be examined from the standpoint of Article 3 alone.   The Court found that there had not been any difference between the applicants’ case and Satık and Others in which the authorities’ lack of a plausible explanation as to how the applicants had sustained their injuries led the Court to conclude that they had been beaten and injured as alleged. In Satık and Others the Court was of the opinion that the investigation into the incident had serious shortcomings, notably the missing case-file and the refusal, having taken four years to decide, to bring criminal proceedings against the gendarmes . The Court consequently also found in the applicants’ case that the State had not carried out its duty to investigate an arguable claim of serious ill-treatment. The Court therefore held in the applicants’ case that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the ill-treatment and the inadequate investigation.   The Court further held that, Ahmet Güven’s situation not having attained a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3, his complaint concerning his continued detention had to be rejected.   Article 34 The Court considered that no issue arose under Article 34 and rejected that part of the application.   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.