CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 22 octobre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     519   22.10.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ALGÜR v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Algür v. Turkey (application no. 32574/96). The Court held unanimously that   ● there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; ● there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to an independent and impartial tribunal); ● it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 3 (c).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of all heads of damage taken together, and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is in French only.)   1.     Principal facts   Meryeme Algür is a Turkish national born in 1973. She was a student at the material time and is currently in Bayrampaşa Prison.   During an operation carried out against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), the applicant was arrested by officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul security police on 21   March 1995 while in possession of false identity papers. She was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of the illegal organisation in question. During her time in custody she did not have any assistance from a lawyer. On 29 March the applicant signed a statement drawn up by the police officers that gave details of her alleged activities in the PKK.   The applicant asserted that while she was in police custody, the officers had subjected her to both physical and psychological ill-treatment. She maintained that she had been punched and kicked repeatedly, threatened with death and rape, and verbally abused. She stated that she had been subjected to “Palestinian hanging” (being suspended by the arms) and that she had also been given electric shocks by means of electrodes attached to her breasts, feet and upper body.   The applicant was examined on 3 April 1995 by a forensic medical expert, who drew up a report that did not mention any sign of traumatic injury to the applicant’s body. On the same day the prison doctor also drew up a report, in which he referred to pain in the applicant’s arms, legs and neck, to general trembling and to two 1   cm by 1 cm scratches on her breasts. He stated that a final report could be drawn up after the applicant had been examined by a forensic medical expert, but it appears from the file that no such examination took place.   Before the public prosecutor, and subsequently before the judge of the National Security Court, the applicant partly retracted her initial statement. Although she admitted that she had known the organisation through relatives, she denied having taken part in its activities. She also told the judge that she had been forced to sign the statement taken by the police officers.   On 25 May 1995 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint alleging ill-treatment on the part of the officers responsible for her while she was in police custody. The public prosecutor held that there was no case to answer as there was insufficient evidence against the officers in question. An appeal by the applicant against that decision was dismissed by the President of the Assize Court.   On 15 October 1996 the National Security Court, whose bench included a military judge, convicted the applicant and sentenced her to fifteen years’ imprisonment under Article   168 of the Criminal Code, which makes membership of an illegal organisation a criminal offence. The Court of Cassation upheld the sentence in a judgment of 16 June 1997.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19   December 1995 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 3 July 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), the applicant complained of the treatment to which she had been subjected while in police custody. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), she maintained that she had not had a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Lastly, she alleged a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance) in that she had not had access to a lawyer during her time in police custody.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that during her fourteen days in police custody, the applicant had not had the right of access to a lawyer or a doctor of her choosing. At the end of her time in custody, following two successive medical examinations, two reports had been drawn up that were in total contradiction with each other. In the absence of an explanation by the Government for the blatant discrepancies between the reports, the Court concluded that the first examination, since it had not revealed any signs of injury, had not been carried out properly. Furthermore, no one had argued that the applicant’s injuries had predated her arrest.   The Court noted that, contrary to the prison doctor’s instructions, no additional medical examination had been carried out in order to establish the causes of the injuries observed on the applicant’s body. Moreover, in deciding that no further action should be taken on the applicant’s complaint, the public prosecutor had merely stated that there was insufficient evidence. In addition, although the applicant had twice submitted that she had not been referred to the forensic medical institute, the President of the Assize Court had dismissed her application to set aside the decision to discontinue the proceedings without addressing that argument.   The Court pointed out that the State was responsible for all persons in custody, since they were in a vulnerable position in the hands of the police and the authorities were under a duty to protect them. Strict application, from the very beginning of a period in custody, of fundamental safeguards such as the right to request an examination by a doctor of one’s choosing – in addition to any examination carried out by a doctor appointed by the police authorities – and access to a lawyer and a relative, coupled with prompt judicial intervention, made it possible to detect and prevent ill-treatment to which, as in the present case, detainees were in danger of being subjected, particularly for the purpose of extracting confessions.   In the light of all those circumstances, and having regard to the fact that no additional medical examination had been carried out and that the Government had not provided a plausible explanation of the cause of the applicant’s injuries, the Court considered that the after-effects from which the applicant was suffering had resulted from treatment for which the Government bore responsibility.   As to the seriousness of the alleged acts, it could not be established from the available medical certificate whether the applicant’s suffering could be described as very severe. However, the treatment which the applicant, who had been twenty-two years old at the material time, had endured – including the failure to carry out an appropriate medical examination – could be regarded as inhuman and degrading. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) As regards the complaint alleging that the Istanbul National Security Court was not independent or impartial, the Court reiterated that it had already held that certain aspects of the status of military judges made their independence and impartiality questionable; they were servicemen who still belonged to the army, which in turn took its orders from the executive.   The Court considered that the fact that a civilian accused of a terrorist offence had to stand trial before a National Security Court whose bench included a military judge constituted a legitimate reason for her to fear that that court might not be independent or impartial. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Having regard to its finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint concerning her lack of access to a lawyer while in police custody.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .   Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.