CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   214 16.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Ümit Isik v. Turkey (application no. 10317/03)   THE COURT DECLARES INADMISSIBLE COMPLAINTS BY A SUSPECTED MEMBER OF THE PKK THAT HE WAS TORTURED, ILLEGALLY DETAINED AND GIVEN AN UNFAIR TRIAL, BUT ACCEPTS THAT THE LENGTH OF HIS PRE-TRIAL DETENTION AND TRIAL WAS EXCESSIVE   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1975. He was being held in Batman Prison at the time of his application to the Court. He suffers from a severe form of epilepsy. On 9 June 1994 he was arrested and taken into police custody in connection with an investigation into the activities of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation). When subsequently questioned, he indicated the site of five crimes committed on behalf of the PKK and acknowledged his involvement in several of the party’s operations. After the questioning sessions, a forensic medical report was drawn up; it did not mention any signs of violence on his body. On 5 July 1994, however, when interviewed by the Tatvan public prosecutor, Mr Işık retracted his statements, alleging that they had been obtained through torture. He repeated those allegations when interviewed later that day by the Tatvan magistrate, who placed him in pre-trial detention.   On 26 February 1998 Mr Işık was found guilty of attempting to undermine the integrity of national territory for separatist purposes and was sentenced to death by the Fourth Division of the Diyarbakır State Security Court; his sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. The judges based their verdict on evidence including Mr Işık’s initial statements, without addressing his claims (which he raised again during the trial) that they had been obtained through torture. On 11 March 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, finding that the investigation had been incomplete and the reasoning insufficient. The Third Division of the State Security Court, to which the case was remitted, again sentenced Mr Işık to life imprisonment. On 13 June 2001 that judgment was itself quashed by the Court of Cassation, which, in view of Mr Işık’s severe epilepsy, asked for the issue of whether he could be held criminally responsible to be determined before the case was reheard. On the basis of expert medical reports, the Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release on medical grounds on 16 December 2004. His release had previously been refused several times in view of the “alleged offence and the state of the evidence”. The proceedings are still pending before the Sixth Division of the Diyarbakır Assize Court (to which the case was referred following the abolition of the State security courts).   It appears from the substantial medical evidence in the file that during his detention Mr Işık received regular medical treatment on the prison premises and was admitted to hospital on several occasions for neurological examinations.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Işık complained that he had been tortured in prison and that his detention had continued despite his illness and the lack of appropriate treatment. Under Article 5, he complained that his pre-trial detention had been based on a confession obtained through torture and had lasted an excessively long time. Lastly, under Article 6, he complained that his trial had been unfair and that the length of the proceedings against him had been excessive.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 31 January 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Spain), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges ,   and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Complaints that the applicant was tortured in police custody and placed in pre-trial detention on the basis of the confession thus obtained through torture (Article 3 and Article 5 § 1 (c))   Mr Işık had first raised these complaints with Turkish law officers in 1994, but they had taken no action. Their passivity had emerged clearly from the judgment of 26 February 1998, which had not addressed the allegations of ill-treatment. From that date, the applicant could no longer have failed to realise that the remedies he had used were ineffective in practice. He should accordingly have brought his complaints before the Court within six months from that date (Article 35 § 1), but had not done so. These parts of the application had therefore been lodged with the Court out of time and were declared inadmissible on that account.   Complaint concerning the alleged incompatibility of the applicant’s health with his detention (Article 3)   The Court noted firstly that Mr Işık had never expanded on his initial arguments concerning this aspect of the case. It further acknowledged that the voluminous medical evidence in the file refuted the applicant’s allegations – which in any event had scarcely been substantiated – as to his lack of medical treatment. The Court therefore likewise declared this part of the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.   Complaint concerning the court’s alleged lack of impartiality and independence (Article 6 § 1)   Since the proceedings in the applicant’s case were still pending in the Diyarbakır Assize Court, the Court could not prejudge their outcome. In other words, this part of the application was premature and was thus likewise inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.   Complaint concerning the allegedly excessive length of pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3)   The applicant’s pre-trial detention had lasted almost 8 years and 10 months. The Government’s argument that there had been a risk that the applicant might evade trial or destroy the evidence against him if released was insufficient to justify such a lengthy period of detention. Indeed, the stereotyped wording used repeatedly by the trial courts to refuse the applicant’s release had not referred to any such risks. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Complaint concerning the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings (Article   6   §   1)   The criminal proceedings against Mr Işık had already lasted 15 years, 8 months and 15 days and were still pending. On the face of it, such a period appeared excessive. Admittedly, as the Government argued, some delays could have been justified by the complexity of the case and the concern to ensure the proper administration of justice. However, those imperatives had prevailed to an undue extent over the requirement of expedition, which had been particularly pressing as the applicant had been deprived of his liberty until 16   December 2004. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings.   Application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The Court held that Turkey was to pay to the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.