CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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 } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   353 31.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DURMUŞ KURT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Durmuş Kurt and Others v. Turkey (application no. 12101/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that the applicants were tortured by the police; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded each applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Durmuş Kurt,   Nurettin Kılıçarslan, and Zübeyde Kayar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1958, 1972 and 1970 respectively and currently living in Germany and Switzerland. At the time of the introduction of the application, they were living in Istanbul.   On 15, 16 and 17 June 1995 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody at the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, as part of a police operation against an illegal organisation, the TKP-ML/TIKKO (Turkish Communist Party-Marxist-Leninist/Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army).   On 28 June 1995 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor at Istanbul State Security Court, where they maintained that they had been interrogated under duress and tortured by the police during their ten days in custody. They contended that they had been beaten, punched, hosed, subjected to Palestinian hanging, deprived of sleep, threatened with death and sexually harassed. They added that, while being hung, electric shocks were administered to them through cables attached to their genitals.   The Turkish Government maintained that the applicants had sustained the injuries described in the medical reports during a dispute with police officers who had been arresting them. The Government claimed that the force used had not been excessive.   The same day (28 June 1995) all three applicants were examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute who declared them unfit for work for three days. The doctor found that: Durmuş Kurt had one yellow and one green lesion of 2 x 2 cm on the right shoulder and a lesion of 3 x 0,5 cm on the inner part of the upper arm; Nurettin Kılıçarslan had four scab-covered lesions of 5 x 0.5 cm positioned parallel to each other in the right armpit and a graze of 5 x 1 cm on the right thigh; and, Zübeyde Kayar had three scab-covered lesions measuring 4 x 0.5 cm positioned parallel to each other in the left armpit. The doctor also considered that a final report could only be drawn up concerning Zübeyde Kayar once she had been examined by a hospital neurology service. Apparently, that additional examination was never carried out.   On 15 November 1995 Fatih Public Prosecutor decided not to prosecute the on-duty police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicants whilst in custody, for lack of evidence.   On 27 November 1996 the International Law and Foreign Relations Directorate of the Ministry of Justice notified Istanbul Public Prosecutor that one of the applicants’ co-detainees had filed an application with the European Commission of Human Rights concerning allegations of torture during the same custody period. The letter stated that the decision of non-prosecution of 15 November 1995 lacked sufficient reasoning, and that a more comprehensive investigation had to be conducted into the allegations.   Subsequently criminal proceedings were brought against five police officers before Istanbul Assize Court on charges of torture and professional misconduct. (The relevant bill of indictment was filed on 2 September 1997.)   On 9 October 1998 the court heard witnesses who confirmed that the applicants had been subjected to torture. In subsequent hearings the applicants identified a number of defendant police officers as those who had allegedly ill-treated them.   On 19 November 2002 the assize court discontinued the proceedings against four police officers on the ground that the prosecution of the offences had become time-barred and acquitted the fifth police officer for insufficient evidence. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 March 2003 and declared partly inadmissible on 23 May 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been tortured while in police custody and that there had been no adequate investigation into their allegations. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The court observed that the medical reports drawn up by a doctor on 28 June 1995, at the end of the applicants’ detention in police custody, showed that they had sustained injuries. The findings in those reports, in the Court’s opinion, matched the applicants’ allegations of having been subjected to Palestinian hanging. The Court observed that the parties did not dispute the medical findings, but put forward different versions as to the cause of the injuries. However, the Court noted that the applicants were not examined medically upon their arrest which, in the Court’s view, would have been the appropriate step to take by the police officers who, the Government asserted, had had to resort to using force during the arrest. In those circumstances, the Court was not satisfied with the Government’s explanations as to the manner in which the injuries found at the end of the detention period were sustained by the applicants.   The Court also considered it probable that the ill-treatment of the applicants was intentionally inflicted by the police with the aim of extracting from them a confession or information about the offences they were suspected of having committed. The Court concluded that the acts of violence to which the applicants were subjected were particularly serious and cruel and capable of causing severe pain and suffering. They therefore amounted to torture, in violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court noted that the applicants complained of ill-treatment to the Fatih Public Prosecutor. Despite their serious allegations and their medical reports, the latter failed to bring any criminal charges against the suspected perpetrators. Furthermore, it was not until a year later, following the communication of a similar application based on the same events by the European Commission of Human Rights to the Government, and the order of the Ministry of Justice dated 27 November 1996, that a new investigation was conducted into the applicants’ allegations. It then took nine months to file a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court on 2 September 1997. The criminal proceedings against the police officers were subsequently discontinued on 19 November 2002, almost five years after the proceedings had been started and seven years and five months after the alleged acts of ill-treatment had taken place.   The Court observed that the proceedings in question had not produced any result due to substantial delays, resulting in the application of the statutory limitations in domestic law. It found that the Turkish authorities could not be considered to have acted with sufficient promptness or diligence, which created virtual impunity for the main perpetrators of the acts of violence, despite the evidence against them.   The Court also found it regrettable that the additional examination ordered by the doctor who examined Zübeyde Kayar was never carried out and that neither the public prosecutor nor   Istanbul Assize Court made any attempt to remedy that failure.   Considering that the proceedings could not be described as thorough and effective, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 13.   ***   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.