CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 juin 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   380 5.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT YEŞİL AND SEVİM v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Yeşil and Sevim v. Turkey (application no. 34738/04).   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 torture to which the applicants were subjected in police custody; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 30,000 euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Hidir Yeşil and Hasan Sevim, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1954 respectively and live in Istanbul.   The applicants were arrested on 9 September 1996 and taken into custody in the offices of the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, on suspicion of belonging to the illegal organisation MKLP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party).   On 18 September 1996 the applicants were examined by a doctor from the Istanbul Institute of Forensic Medicine, who noted that Mr Yeşil had parallel lesions, with scabs measuring 1   x   3 cm, on the left side of his chest and reduced movement in his left arm. The doctor also observed that Mr Sevim had pain and reduced mobility throughout his body and in particular in the left elbow and wrist, had a violet-coloured bruise 3 cm in diameter on his abdomen and had lost a tooth in his upper jaw. Both men stated that they had been beaten, subjected to electric shocks and sprayed with water.   Still on 18 September 1996, the applicants were brought before a judge, to whom they complained that they had been tortured; the judge ordered their detention pending trial.   In May 1997 the public prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against seven police officers under Article 243 of the Criminal Code (extraction of confessions under torture), on suspicion of having ill-treated 12 persons in police custody, including the applicants. The latter applied to join the proceedings as intervening parties.   On 25 April 2002 the Assize Court found it established that the complainants had been beaten, strangled, undressed, harassed, threatened, sprayed with water and subjected to electric shocks, and that they had been deprived of sleep and of any means of relieving themselves while in police custody. It also observed that the acts in question had been performed by the police officers in a bid to extract confessions and that they had caused acute pain or suffering. Accordingly, it sentenced one of the police offices, Bayram Kartal, to ten months’ imprisonment and two months and 15 days’ suspension from duty; the other six officers were sentenced to 11 months and 20 days’ imprisonment and three months’ suspension from duty. Under section 6 of Law no. 647 on the execution of sentences, the Assize Court also decided to stay execution of the sentences, taking the view that the accused were not likely to reoffend.   On 5 May 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment and decided to terminate the proceedings against the police officers on the ground that they were time-barred.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 August 2004.   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), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained that they had been subjected to torture in police custody and that the authorities had failed to act on their allegations. They relied on Articles 3, 13 and 6 (right to a fair trial).   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that Istanbul Assize Court had characterised as torture the acts to which the applicants had been subjected, in view of their intensity and the fact that the treatment had been inflicted intentionally by agents of the State acting in an official capacity, in order to extract confessions or information concerning the facts of which the applicants were accused.   The Court saw no reason to depart from those conclusions. Consequently, it held that, taken overall, the acts of violence to which the applicants were subjected had been particularly serious and cruel and capable of causing “severe” pain and suffering. They could therefore be characterised as torture.   Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court observed that the criminal proceedings as a whole had been very long: five years and seven months after the facts, the assize court had found seven police officers guilty of torturing the applicants. It was particularly struck by the fact that the Court of Cassation had waited two years and one month before ruling on the appeal and deciding that the prosecution of the applicants’ presumed torturers, who had continued to carry out their duties throughout the proceedings, had lapsed. The proceedings had thus been terminated as being time ‑ barred over eight years after the facts.   Given the overall length of the criminal proceedings, which had lasted for over eight years, the Court found that the Turkish authorities could not be considered to have acted with sufficient promptness or with reasonable diligence, with the result that the perpetrators of the violence had enjoyed impunity, notwithstanding the fact that they had been found guilty of torture.   In the circumstances, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 6   Having regard to its conclusions under Article 13, the Court considered that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 6.     ***   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.