CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 juillet 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 } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   540 31.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DİRİ v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Diri v. Turkey (application no. 68351/01).   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 applicant was tortured in an F-Type Prison; and, a violation of Article 3 concerning the Turkish authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of torture.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 (less the EUR   850 received in legal aid) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Sabri Diri, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Switzerland.   In December 2000 the applicant, who had been convicted of membership of an illegal organisation, was serving his prison sentence in the Ümraniye E-Type Prison in Istanbul. At that time a large number of prisoners, including the applicant, went on hunger strike to protest against F-Type prisons. On 19 December 2000 the security forces conducted an operation in several prisons to stop the protests, in the course of which numerous prisoners and members of the security forces were wounded and 32 people died.   On 22 December 2000 the applicant was transferred to the Kocaeli Kandıra F-Type Prison. In a medical report issued by prison doctors that day, it was noted that the applicant had various injuries, not including injuries on his feet.   On 23 February 2001 the applicant was transferred to the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison. On admission to the prison, he claimed he was strip searched and beaten, that his hair and moustache were forcibly cut and that he was put in a cell alone and forced to listen to loud music. According to the applicant, as he refused to stand up and shout his name during the daily headcounts, he was subjected to ill-treatment by the prison guards, in particular falaka (beating on the soles of the feet).   On 24 February 2001 and 3 March 2001, respectively, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor, who did not find any signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body.   On 4 March 2001 the applicant’s lawyer filed a complaint about the ill-treatment which the applicant had suffered in the Tekirdağ prison. He also requested that the applicant be examined by a forensic doctor.   The Tekirdağ public prosecutor started an investigation into the applicant’s allegations and, on 8 March 2001, ordered a further medical examination by the prison doctor. The prison doctor again reported that there were no signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body.   On 14 March 2001 the public prosecutor issued a decision of non prosecution relying on the medical reports dated 24 February, 3 March and 8 March 2001, according to which there was no sign of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   On 31 May 2001 the European Court of Human Rights asked the Turkish Government to conduct further medical examinations of the applicant, a bone scintigraphy and a Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan (MRI). The bone scintigraphy concluded that the injuries were the results of “traumatism”.   On 19 July 2001, taking into account the applicant’s poor health due to the hunger strike, the authorities released him from prison for six months.   On 16 October 2001 given the findings indicated in the bone scintigraphy, the International Law Department of the Ministry of Justice consulted the Directorate General of Criminal Law Issues as to whether a writ of mandamus (yazılı emir) should be issued to restart the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. On 17 October 2001 the Tekirdağ public prosecutor was contacted for his opinion on the matter. He replied that, as the bone scintigraphy test did not reveal the exact cause or the timing of the injuries, a writ of mandamus could not be issued.   On 30 November 2001 the Forensic Medicine Institute gave its opinion that the findings mentioned in the bone scintigraphy report could not have resulted from rheumatism or the hunger strike, but were caused by a trauma.   The applicant returned to the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison on 5 April 2002, but was released once again on 12 April 2002 for another six months.   In September 2006 the applicant’s lawyer requested an additional expert report from a forensic expert who concluded that the findings in the bone scintigraphy report corresponded to the applicant’s allegation of falaka .   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 March 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr Diri complained in particular, that he was tortured in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison and that the authorities did not conduct an adequate investigation into his complaints of torture. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the ill-treatment The Court noted that the findings indicated in the bone scintigraphy report dated 14 June 2001 and the medical report issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute on 30 November 2001 were consistent with the applicant’s allegation that he had been subjected to falaka in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison. As clearly indicated in those reports, the injuries to the applicant’s feet could not have been caused by rheumatism or the result of his hunger strike. They could only have been sustained by trauma. The Court did not see any reason why the doctors who examined the applicant on 22 December 2000 would not have reported injuries to the applicant’s feet if they had been sustained during the incidents which took place in the Ümraniye E-Type Prison in December 2000, as claimed by the Turkish Government. The Court therefore concluded that the injuries to the applicant’s feet had to be attributable to a form of ill-treatment for which the authorities at Tekirdağ bore responsibility.   The Court further considered that the treatment complained of was inflicted on the applicant intentionally by the prison guards with the purpose of punishing him and of breaking his physical and moral resistance to the prison administration. In those circumstances, the Court found that the act was particularly serious and cruel and capable of causing severe pain and suffering. The Court therefore concluded that that sort of ill-treatment amounted to torture in violation of Article 3.   The Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint that, on admission to the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison, he had been strip searched and his hair and moustache forcibly shaved and that he had been kept in a cell alone and subjected to loud music.   Concerning the investigation The Court noted with regret that the public prosecutor omitted to request any further medical examination on 8 March 2001, to take statements from the accused prison guards or to question witnesses and the prison doctor who had drafted the three medical reports dated 24 February 2001, 3 March 2001 and 8 March 2001, before delivering his decision of non-prosecution. In delivering his decision, the prosecutor limited himself to the three medical reports which merely stated that there was no sign of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body. The Court recalled that proper medical examinations were an essential safeguard against ill-treatment. The forensic doctor had to enjoy formal and de facto independence, to have been provided with specialised training and to have been allocated a mandate which was sufficiently broad in scope. In the applicant’s case, the medical reports dated 3 and 8 March 2001, which were drafted by the prison’s own doctor, provided limited medical information and did not include any explanation from the applicant as regards his complaints.   The Court also found it noteworthy that, after the bone scintigraphy results and the subsequent report of the Forensic Medicine Institute, which confirmed that the injuries to the applicant’s feet could only have been sustained by a trauma, the public prosecutor, who had the authority under Article 167 of the Criminal Code to restart the domestic investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, took no further action. The Court considered that, had the public prosecutor restarted the domestic investigation on the basis of the new evidence, he could have collected valuable information as to how and when the applicant’s injuries might have been sustained.   The Court concluded that the applicant’s claim that he was subjected to falaka during his detention in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison was not subject to an effective investigation by the domestic authorities, in violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.