CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD1986A30 { margin-left:28.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s83FDA10F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:113.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 264 26.4.2007 Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT EVRİM ÇİFTÇİ v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Evrim Çiftçi v. Turkey (n° 2) (application no. 39449/98).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was subjected while she was held in police custody; a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment; a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 630 already received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Evrim Çiftçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976. She currently lives in Switzerland, where she has political refugee status.   On 15 January 1997 Ms Çiftçi was arrested and taken into police custody in connection with a police operation against the illegal organisation DHP (People’s Revolutionary Party). When interrogated by police officers she confessed, acknowledging that she was a member of the DHP. She alleged that the police had obtained her confession by torture, in the form of suspension by her arms, beatings, insults and sexual assault.   At the end of her period of police custody, on 29 January 1997, the applicant underwent a medical examination which revealed sensitivity in her left arm. On the same day she was brought before a judge, who remanded her in custody. On 6 February the doctor at Ümraniye prison examined Ms Çiftçi and found that she had some pain around the left shoulder blade, with a loss of motor sense in her forearm and in the flexor muscle of her left hand.   Following a complaint by the applicant against the police officers responsible for her police custody, two of them were committed for trial in the Istanbul Assize Court on a charge of obtaining a confession by duress. Before that court the applicant acknowledged that the defendants were not her torturers and provided some details about her interrogators.   On 3 July 1998 the Assize Court acquitted the two police officers after noting that the applicant had exonerated them.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission on Human Rights on 23 July 1997. On 1   November 1998 it was transmitted to the Court, which declared it admissible on 9 May 2006.   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 Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that she had been tortured during her period of police custody. She also complained about the length of that period and about the lack of a remedy by which to obtain a review of the lawfulness of the measure. She relied, in particular, on Articles 3 and 5.     Decision of the Court   Article 3   As to the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant The Court noted that the applicant had remained entirely in the hands of the police throughout her 14-day period of police custody, without any outside contact.   The Court observed that at the end of the period she had been suffering from, among other ailments, pain around the left shoulder-blade and a loss of motor sense in her forearm and in the flexor muscle of her left hand. This diagnosis was subsequently confirmed by the prison doctor. As she had not undergone a medical examination just after her arrest, it could not be claimed that the origin of the injuries dated back to an earlier period. Since there were no plausible explanations as to the cause of the injuries, the Court considered that the applicant’s brachial symptoms had originated in treatment that had been inflicted on her during her time in police custody and for which Turkey bore responsibility.   The Court noted that the applicant’s symptoms were consistent with her allegations that she had been suspended by her arms. In those circumstances it held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   As to the positive and procedural obligations The Court noted that the proceedings brought against the two police officers presumed to be responsible for the applicant’s police custody had resulted in their acquittal. The trial court had failed to establish either the existence of ill-treatment or the involvement of State agents in the facts complained of by the applicant.   In the Court’s view it had been for the Turkish authorities, of their own motion, to extend the investigation so as to establish the facts and identify who was “really” responsible. However, there was nothing in the case file to show that any steps had been taken to that end. Accordingly, the Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 3 as regards the investigation conducted into the applicant’s allegations of torture.     Article 5   The Court noted that the applicant’s period of police custody had lasted for 14 days, well beyond the strict time-limit contemplated by Article 5 § 3. Moreover, it had not been shown that at the relevant time she had had a remedy by which to dispute the lawfulness of her police custody. The Court thus held that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4.   ***   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.