CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 mars 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   221 17.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SALMANOĞLU AND POLATTAŞ v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Salmanoğlu and Polattaş v. Turkey (application no. 15828/03).   The Court held:   by four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicants’ ill-treatment while in police custody; and, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of an adequate investigation into the applicants’ allegations.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 10,000   euros   (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are two Turkish nationals: Nazime Ceren Salmanoğlu who was born in 1983 and lives in Izmir (Turkey); and, Fatma Deniz Polattaş who was born in 1980 and lives in Switzerland.   The applicants, 16 and 19 years old at the time, were arrested in March 1999 in the context of a police operation against the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). Both girls claim that, during their police custody, they were blindfolded and beaten. Nazime also alleges that she was sexually harassed and, forced to stand for a long time, was deprived of food, water and sleep. Fatma further alleges that she was raped by having a truncheon inserted into her anus.   The applicants were examined between 6 and 12 March 1999 during their police custody by three doctors who all noted that there was no sign of physical violence to their bodies. Both applicants also had a gynaecological examination (a “virginity test”) to establish whether they had recently had sexual intercourse; the examinations recorded that the girls were still virgins. On 6 April 1999 Fatma was also given a rectal examination; the doctor noted no sign of intercourse.   Following complaints made by the two applicants on 26 March and 1 June 1999, an investigation was launched by the prosecution authorities. The Hatay Assize Court subsequently decided that criminal proceedings should be brought against the police officers who had questioned the applicants during their police custody.   On 14 April 2000, during the first hearing of the case, the girls confirmed their allegations of ill-treatment. They also submitted that, when brought before the public prosecutor and judge on 12 March 1999 with a view to their being remanded in custody, they had not made statements about their ill-treatment as they were scared. In particular, they both contended that, during certain medical examinations and when they had made statements to the prosecution, the presence of police officers had intimidated them.   The accused police officers denied that they had ill-treated the girls; nor had they been present during their medical examinations or the taking down of their statements.   During the criminal proceedings the applicants had various further medical examinations. In particular, on 23 October 2000 experts from the Istanbul Faculty of Medicine diagnosed them both with post-traumatic stress disorder. Fatma was further declared as having a major depressive disorder. Those conclusions were based on the applicants’ submissions about the physical, psychological and sexual assault they had endured one and a half years previously. The applicants subsequently underwent psychotherapy. Further reports by the Forensic Medicine Institute of 5 March 2003 and 25 August 2004, on the whole, corroborated those conclusions.   Ultimately, following numerous requests for further medical reports and postponements of hearings, in April 2005 the domestic courts acquitted the police officers on the ground that there was insufficient evidence against them. Subsequently, in November 2006 that judgment was quashed; however, the criminal proceedings against the police officers were terminated as the prosecution had become time-barred.   In the meantime, in November 1999 the two girls were convicted of membership of an illegal organisation and of throwing Molotov cocktails. They were sentenced to terms of imprisonment amounting to   more than   12 and 18 years, respectively.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 March 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article   3, the applicants alleged that they were subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody, notably sexual abuse and rape, and that the investigation into their allegations was inadequate. They also alleged that they were subjected to “virginity tests”, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   As concerned the ill-treatment   The Court considered that the applicants’ allegations, together with their age at the relevant time and the various medical reports, had been sufficiently consistent and serious to raise a reasonable suspicion that they could have been subjected to ill-treatment.   As concerned the applicants’ examinations at the end of their detention in police custody, the Court observed that at least on one occasion in March 1999, the applicants had been examined simultaneously in the same room while police officers could hear their conversations with the doctor and had a view of the examination room if they wished. That clearly fell short of the standards recommended by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (the “CPT”). Indeed, the nurse who had been present during a rectal examination of Fatma Polattaş in April 1999 had told the assize court that there had been a prison guard in the examination room.   Furthermore, the Court was particularly struck by the fact that the doctors who had examined the applicants during their police custody, without using the standard medical forms, had merely recorded their findings on the letters sent to them by police headquarters requesting their medical expertise. That clearly disregarded instructions issued by the Turkish Ministry of Health in 1995 and 1997. What was more, the doctors had only written down that they had not observed any sign of physical violence on the applicants’ bodies; none had noted down the detainees’ statements or conclusions.   The applicants had also been subjected to “virginity tests” at the start of their detention in police custody, allegedly following their complaints of sexual violence. However, the Government had not submitted any proof of written consent. In any case, even assuming that the applicants had given their consent, the Court considered that there could be no medical or legal necessity to justify such an intrusive examination as the applicants had not yet complained of sexual assault when the tests had been carried out. The tests in themselves could therefore be considered to have constituted discriminatory and degrading treatment.   The Court therefore found that, in the applicants’ case, the national authorities had failed to ensure that the system of medical examinations of those placed in police custody had functioned effectively.   Moreover, the reports of 23 October 2000, 5 March 2003 and 25 August 2004 were conclusive evidence in the applicants’ favour. The Government had not challenged the accuracy of those medical reports or provided any other plausible explanation for the post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosed in the report of 23 October 2000.   Therefore, given the circumstances of the case as a whole, and in particular the virginity tests carried out without any medical or legal necessity as well as the post-traumatic stress and depressive disorders suffered, the Court was persuaded that the applicants, only 16 and 19 at the relevant time, had been subjected to severe ill-treatment during their detention in police custody, in violation of Article 3.   As concerned the ineffectiveness of the investigation   The Court was struck by the fact that the proceedings in question had not produced any result even after seven years, mainly on account of the substantial delays throughout the proceedings and, decisively, when the statutory limitations in domestic law were applied.   The Court therefore concluded that the Turkish authorities had not effectively investigated the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment, in further violation of Article 3.   Article 14   Finally, the Court held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 14.     Judges Sajó, Tsotsoria and Karakaş expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.