CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 avril 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s5752D6FA { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7B92CF83 { width:23.33pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     252   5.4.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT IN THE CASE OF DENMARK v. TURKEY (application no. 34382/97)     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 5 April 2000 in the case of Denmark v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously to strike the application out of its list of cases having satisfied itself that a friendly settlement had been secured on the basis of respect for human rights.   1.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7   January   1997. Following the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention on 1   November 1998 the case was transferred to the Court. It was assigned to the First Section, which declared the application admissible on 8 June 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Judges Feyyaz G ölcüklü , (Turkish) ad hoc Judge ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   2.   Details of the settlement   Following its decision to declare the application admissible the Court placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 38 § 1 (b) of the Convention.   After consultations between the parties they submitted the following declarations: “FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT OF APPLICATION NO. 34382/97 DENMARK   VERSUS TURKEY   On 8 June 1999 the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights declared admissible application 34382/97 Denmark v. Turkey. The application is related to an examination of the allegation by a Danish citizen concerning ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Turkish authorities during the period of 8 July to 16 August 1996, when he was detained in Turkey, and an examination of an allegation whether the interrogation techniques allegedly applied to this Danish citizen, are applied in Turkey as a widespread practice.   On 8 June 1999 the Court also put itself at the parties’ disposal for the purpose of securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 38 1(b) of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court stated that it would welcome any proposals either party might wish to make with a view to reaching such a settlement.   After consultations which the parties held between themselves, the Agents of the applicant Government and the respondent Government in the case presented to the Court a proposed joint outline for a friendly settlement of the Application 34382/97 Denmark v. Turkey. It reads as follows:   ‘1.   In order to settle the first part of the application, the respondent Government has agreed to pay to the applicant Government an amount ex gratia of DKK 450,000 which includes legal expenses connected with the case.   2.   The applicant Government notes with satisfaction the enclosed declaration of the respondent Government, which constitutes an integral part of the friendly settlement.   3.   In the light of the first part of the case, the applicant Government appreciates the acknowledgement and regret expressed by the respondent Government concerning occasional and individual cases of torture and ill-treatment in Turkey.   4   The applicant Government welcomes the steps taken by Turkey in order to combat ill-treatment and torture since the filing of the application on 7 January 1997.   5.   The applicant Government and the respondent Government agree that the use of inappropriate police interrogation techniques constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and that such techniques shall be prevented in the future. The two Governments recognise that this aim can best be attained through training.   To this end the applicant Government and the respondent Government recall that the Council of Europe has launched a comprehensive project the objective of which is a re-organisation of the content of the basic, in-service and management training of the police in the member countries. The applicant Government notes with satisfaction the voluntary participation of the respondent Government in this open-ended project. One element of the project is training in police investigation. The project is dependent on funding from Turkey and other members of the Council of Europe. The applicant Government will make a significant financial contribution to this Council of Europe project.   Furthermore, the applicant Government will finance a bilateral project. This project - subject to agreement between the two parties - will be aimed at the training of Turkish police officers, in order to achieve further knowledge and practical skills in the field of human rights.   6.   On the basis of the Action Plan for the Development of the Bilateral Relations Between Turkey and Denmark which was agreed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey in Copenhagen on 26   November   1999, the Government of Denmark and the Government of Turkey have decided to establish a continuous bilateral Danish-Turkish political dialogue.   This dialogue will also focus on human rights issues with a view to improving the human rights situation in concrete fields. The parties have agreed that individual cases, including cases concerning allegations of torture or ill-treatment, as well as general issues - such as the issues mentioned in the declaration by the Government of Turkey - may be raised by either party within the framework of this dialogue.’   DECLARATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TURKEY   The Turkish Government regrets the occurrence of occasional and individual cases of torture and ill-treatment despite the resolute action of the Government and existing legislation as well as administrative regulations. New legal and administrative control and punishment regulations have been adopted as a consequence of which such individual acts substantially decreased.   Within the last year, Articles 243, 245 and 354 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) were amended to redefine and prevent torture and ill-treatment in accordance with international conventions and the penalty for such criminal acts were increased. The amendment of Article 354 stipulates the prosecution of doctors and other medical personnel charged with drafting false reports regarding cases of torture or ill ‑ treatment.   ‘The Regulation on Apprehension, Custody and Interrogation’, which came into force on 1   October 1998, brought procedures in line with the standards of the Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). A circular of the Prime Ministry concerning increased respect for human rights, issued on 25 June 1999, introduced measures to ensure the effective implementation of the above-mentioned regulation by all relevant public authorities and enhanced control of implementation. The circular stipulates that Governors, District Governors, Public Prosecutors, Public Inspectors, other officials entitled for inspection, Commanders of Gendarmerie and Police Directors are authorised to implement random controls and inspections. The circular also stipulates that necessary measures will be rapidly taken to remedy the deficiencies found during these inspections and necessary procedures will be initiated for faulty officials. In addition, the Ministries of Justice and the Interior will submit once in every three months from 1 January 2000 on, written information to the Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Co-ordinating High Committee on the results of reports prepared with regard to these controls and inspections.   Finally, the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Other Officials, which was approved by Parliament on 2 December 1999 and entered into force, facilitates the initiation of investigations and prosecution of public officials. In this context, the request for permission to initiate an investigation by public prosecutors of civil servants for crimes alleged to have been committed in connection to their duties has to be concluded within 4,5 months, the period for appeal included. The new law clarified many issues concerning the trial of public officials, determined the bodies authorised to allow an investigation and stipulated the authorities entitled to carry out preliminary examinations and preparatory investigations.   Allegations of torture and ill-treatment have been greatly reduced during the past two years as a result of the measures which have been taken by Turkish authorities. This progress has also been acknowledged since 1997 by the CPT, operating within the framework of the Convention for the Prevention of Torture, to which Turkey is a party.   In order to ensure the continuation of these reforms, our Government will undertake further improvements in the field of human rights, especially concerning the occurrence of incidents of torture and ill-treatment.   Turkey will continue co-operation with international organs and mechanisms as contained in international human rights instruments to which Turkey is a party - in particular the CPT. Turkey will also continue to inform such organs and mechanisms on developments with regard to the implementation of the legal and administrative measures in this field in accordance with their relevant rules and procedures.”   * * *   The Court found that an agreement had been reached between the parties and was satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights.   Accordingly, the Court decided to strike the case out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court.   Pursuant to Article 44 § 2 (a) of the Convention the judgment is final.   The Committee of Ministers shall supervise the execution of the undertakings contained in the settlement (Article 46 § 2).   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: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (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.