CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 mai 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   277 3.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KOÇAK v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Koçak v. Turkey (application no. 32581/96).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 13,560 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mehmet Koçak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul.   On 12 December 1993, the applicant was arrested along with five others during an anti-terrorist police operation against the PKK.   As a result, between 12 and 27 December 1993, Mr Koçak was detained in the Istanbul Security Directorate where he alleged that he was threatened with torture in order to make him confess to being a member of the PKK. On refusing, he was stripped naked, immersed in cold water and beaten with a truncheon on various parts of his body, including the soles of his feet. He was then forced to walk on a floor strewn with salt. He was also subjected to a form of torture known as “Palestinian hanging”, whereby, his hands tied together, he was strung up by his arms. In this position, electric shocks were administered to his genitals, his fingers and feet. He was subsequently forced into signing a statement. During his detention in police custody, Mr Koçak was kept in a cell where he was deprived of food and water and prevented from sleeping.   Following Mr Koçak’s transfer from police custody, two medical reports were drawn up. The first was made on 27 December 1993 in which a doctor noted that Mr Koçak had two 2-3 cm bruises on both sides of his hips. The second was made on 14 January 1994 by a different doctor who noted swelling and bruising all over Mr Koçak’s body, notably on his arms, wrists, hands, back, groin and the soles of his feet. He also reported injuries to Mr Koçak’s hands and several old wounds on both his wrists and ankles.   Mr Koçak consistently denied the accuracy of the statements obtained from him by the police. Firstly, on 27 December 1993, he declared to the public prosecutor and a judge of Istanbul State Security Court, before it issued an order to detain him on remand, that his statements had been made under duress. Subsequently, between 30 December 1993 and 27 March 1995, he filed three petitions alleging that he had been tortured in police custody with the intention of obtaining a confession from him.   An investigation into those allegations was carried out concerning the director of the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. Furthermore, criminal proceedings were brought against two police officers who were accused of torturing Mr Koçak. It was decided, due to lack of evidence, not to prosecute the former and to acquit the latter.   On 26 November 1996 Istanbul State Security Court convicted Mr Koçak of membership of the PKK and sentenced him to 12 years and six months' imprisonment.   That court reached its conclusions, in particular, on the basis that Mr Koçak had surrendered a 7.65 mm calibre pistol and seven bullets to the police; that one of Mr Koçak's co-accused had confirmed his and Mr Koçak’s involvement in PKK activities and that three other co-accused had stated that Mr Koçak had collected money on behalf of the PKK. Finally, the court noted that Mr Koçak had maintained his support for PKK ideology during the proceedings’ hearings and believed that the PKK was the legitimate representative of Kurdistan.   On 26 April 2003 Mr Koçak was conditionally released from prison.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 October 1995. It was transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. The Court declared the application partly admissible on 7 October 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Pâivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3, Mr Koçak complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. He further complained under Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (c) (right to a fair trial) that he had been deprived of his right to legal assistance during questioning by the police, by the public prosecutor and by the judge who ordered his detention on remand.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court reiterated that, if an individual was taken into custody in good health but found to be injured at the time of release, it was up to the State to provide a plausible explanation as to how those injuries had occurred. It was also the State’s duty to produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations were backed up by medical reports.   The Court noted that Mr Koçak had not been medically examined at the beginning of his detention. Following his transfer from police custody, two medical examinations had been carried out and reports drawn up. The Court observed that the findings contained in the second report had been consistent with Mr Koçak's allegations of ill ‑ treatment. Moreover, the Government had not provided a plausible explanation for the marks and injuries on Mr   Koçak’s body.   In the light of the circumstances of the case as a whole and in the absence of a plausible explanation by the Government, the Court concluded that the injuries noted in the medical reports had resulted from ill ‑ treatment for which Turkey had to bear responsibility. Given the nature and degree of the ill-treatment and the likelihood, from the evidence available, that it had been used in order to obtain information from Mr Koçak, the Court found that that ill-treatment had inflicted very serious and cruel suffering which could only be characterised as torture. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 6 The Court noted that Mr Koçak's right of access to a lawyer while in police custody had been restricted in accordance with the domestic legislation in force at the relevant time.   However, the Istanbul State Security Court's judgment of 26   November   1996, which had convicted Mr   Koçak of membership of the PKK, had   not been based on his statements to the police, the public prosecutor or the judge who had ordered his detention on remand. That court had taken into consideration statements made during the hearings by Mr Koçak and by four of his co-accused. Its conclusions had also relied on the fact that Mr Koçak had surrendered a pistol and bullets to the police.   Having observed, therefore, that Mr Koçak's lack of access to legal assistance during the preliminary investigation could not be considered to have deprived him of a fair trial, the Court declared that complaint inadmissible.   ***   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.