CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   447 26.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CANAN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Canan v. Turkey (application no. 39436/98).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant’s father’s death; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of the treatment to which the applicant’s father was subjected, resulting in his violent death; a violation of Article 2 on account of the lack of an effective investigation.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Abdullah Canan’s heirs 60,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vehap Canan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Hakkari (Turkey). His father, Abdullah Canan, who at the relevant time was a well-known businessman in Yüksekova (Turkey), died at the age of 43.   On 27 October and 23 November 1995 two military operations were carried out by members of the Mountain and Commando Battalion ( Dağ Komando Tabur Komutanlığı ) in the villages of Ağaçlı and Karlı, attached to the Yüksekova district. Three people were reported missing after the first military operation.   Abdullah Canan and seven members of his family lodged a criminal complaint against the battalion commander, Mehmet Emin Yurdakul, alleging that their homes and household effects had been deliberately damaged during the second military operation. According to the applicant, his father had subsequently been put under pressure to withdraw his complaint.   The applicant submitted that on 17 January 1996, in the course of an inspection on the road between Yüksekova and Van, Abdullah Canan had been arrested by soldiers attached to the headquarters of the battalion led by Mehmet Emin Yurdakul. His father had then been driven away in a military vehicle and taken into custody at the battalion headquarters. The applicant and his relatives sought information about Abdullah Canan from the authorities, but their requests were allegedly not dealt with. In the end, they lodged a criminal complaint.   Abdullah Canan’s body, bound and gagged, was found beside the Esendere road on 21 February 1996. The autopsy performed that day revealed that there were seven bullet entry holes on the body: on the forehead, the scalp, the right shoulder blade, the chin, the throat and the chest. It was concluded that the shots had been fired at very close range and the marks on the fingers and wrists showed that the deceased had been bound by the wrists for some time.   On 12 November 1999 the Assize Court acquitted the three accused, referring to two other   lines of inquiry that were to be explored in order to clarify the circumstances of the killing, namely terrorism and intertribal conflict. The court ordered a separate investigation in respect of Mehmet Emin Yurdakul for abuse of authority and restriction of personal freedom. The case was discontinued in May 2001 as prosecution of the offences had become time-barred.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 December 1997. It was referred to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that his father had been the victim of an extrajudicial execution. He relied on Articles 2,   3, 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention   As to the death The Court observed that certain witness statements supported the applicant’s assertion that his father had been arrested and taken into custody by members of the security forces, although a large number of witnesses who had been present at the site where Abdullah Canan had allegedly been arrested had stated that they had not seen anything, and the soldiers on duty had categorically denied that he had been arrested and taken into custody.   The Court observed, in particular, that certain pieces of witness evidence had been excluded by the Turkish courts and that the courts had ignored statements indicating not only that Mr Canan had been present at the battalion barracks, but also that he had been “injured, with his head bandaged”.   In the circumstances of the case, the Court had regard to the limited scope of the proceedings in the Turkish courts and the conduct of the authorities, who, by uncritically accepting the security forces’ denials, had made clear their intention not to examine the allegations against the officers concerned.   The lack of any plausible explanation by the authorities as to the circumstances leading to the violent death of Mr Canan led the Court to conclude that Turkey bore responsibility for the death. It therefore found a violation of Articles 2 and 3 on that account.   As to the investigation The Court noted that after Abdullah Canan’s body had been discovered, the authorities had promptly carried out certain investigative measures. However, the examination of the accused and of witnesses had not begun until almost one year after the body had been found.   Furthermore, a full autopsy had initially not been deemed necessary. However, the deceased’s remains had been exhumed and an autopsy had been carried out more than two years after the body had been found, although it had not shed any light on the circumstances of the death. Such a lengthy gap between the death and the autopsy could only have undermined the autopsy’s effectiveness.   The Court further noted that the criminal proceedings had also concerned the killing of three other people who had been reported missing at the same time in the same region. However, no connection between the circumstances of these various disappearances had been established at any stage of the proceedings. The Court also observed that most of the witness evidence had been taken on commission and that the civil party had not had the opportunity to examine the witnesses concerned.   In conclusion, the Court considered that the investigation in the present case into the circumstances surrounding the death of Abdullah Canan could not be regarded as effective. It held that there had been a serious breach of Turkey’s procedural obligations under Article 2, a finding that dispensed it from having to conduct a separate examination under Article 3.   Articles 5 and 13   The Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 5 and 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.