CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 juillet 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB220F3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s3CCA30AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     518   11.7.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DİKME v. TURKEY   In a judgment notified in writing on 11 July 2000 in the case of Dikme v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the European Convention on Human Rights and a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment) both in view of the treatment inflicted on Metin Dikme while he was in custody and the absence of an official inquiry concerning his complaints.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 2 (right to be informed of reasons for arrest) or Article 6 §§1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), or Article   8 (right to respect for family life).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Metin Dikme 200,000 French francs for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicants, Metin Dikme, born in 1969 and currently held in Istanbul Prison, and his mother, Emine Dikme, who was born in 1933 and lives in Vienna, are both Turkish nationals.   Mr Dikme was arrested on 10 February 1992 and taken into custody by the Anti-Terrorist Brigade of the Istanbul Security Police on suspicion of having carried out a number of attacks in the name of an extreme left-wing armed group “ Devrimci Sol ” (revolutionary left). On 26   February 1992 he was examined by a specialist in forensic medicine, whose report mentioned only old scratches on Mr Dikme’s left elbow on which scabs had formed. Later that day, Mr Dikme was brought before a judge of the Istanbul National Security Court who ordered his detention pending trial. He was transferred to Istanbul Prison and on 28   February 1992 was examined by the prison doctor who noted in his medical report signs of approximately twenty abrasions, cuts and grazes, mainly on the arms and legs. On 9 July 1993, Mr Dikme’s complaint against the police officers on duty while he was in detention was dismissed. Proceedings instituted by Mr Dikme are still pending.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 October 1992. Having declared the application partly admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 4 June 1999 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that, as regards Mr   Dikme, there had been a violation of Articles 3, 5 § 3, and Article 6, §§ 1 and 3 (c) combined, of the Convention, but that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 2. It considered unanimously that there had been no violation of Mrs Dikme’s rights under Article 8. It referred the case to the Court on 11 September 1999. A hearing was held on 29 February 2000. Judgment was given by a chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc Judge , and also Michael O’Boyle Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr Dikme alleged that he had been tortured in police custody, in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also contended that he had not been informed of the charges against him at the time of his arrest (in breach of Article 5 § 2), had not been brought promptly before a judge (in breach of Article 5 § 3) and had not been given access to his lawyer while in police custody or during the proceedings before the National Security Court (in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)). Mrs Dikme complained under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) that she had not been allowed to see her son during his detention.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 2   Mr Dikme alleged that after he was interrogated for the first time a member of the security police threatened him, saying: “You belong to Devrimci Sol , and if you don’t give us the information we need the only way for you to get out of here will be as a corpse!” The Court considered that this statement gave a fairly precise indication of the nature of the suspicions entertained about the applicant. Having regard to that circumstance, the fact that the organisation mentioned was illegal and the reasons which might have prompted Mr Dikme to hide his identity and to fear the police, the Court considered that the applicant should or could already have realised at that stage that he was suspected of being involved in prohibited activities such as those of Dev-Sol .   Whether he did or not, the intensity and frequency of these interrogations also suggested that right from the first session, which lasted until 7 p.m. or just after, Mr   Dikme could have gained some idea of what he was suspected of.   In conclusion, the Court found that in the circumstances of the case there had been no violation of Article 5 § 2.   Article 5 § 3   The Court confined itself to pointing out the importance of Article 5 in the Convention system. Only prompt judicial intervention could effectively lead to the detection and prevention of ill-treatment, such as that alleged by Mr Dikme, there being a risk that this would be inflicted on detained persons, particularly with a view to extracting confessions from them. In short, the Court considered that the length of time Mr Dikme had spent in police custody did not satisfy the requirement of promptness laid down in Article 5 § 3 and accordingly that there had been a violation of that provision.   Article 3   The Court considered that the violence inflicted on Mr Dikme had been both inhuman and degrading. It therefore remained to be determined whether the treatment meted out to the applicant could be described as torture, as he maintained. It was undeniable that the applicant had lived in a permanent state of physical pain and anxiety on account of the uncertainty about what was to happen to him and of the repeated blows which had accompanied the long sessions of interrogation to which he was subjected throughout the time he spent in police custody.   The Court considered that this treatment had been inflicted on him intentionally by servants of the State in the performance of their duties with the aim of extracting from him confessions or information about the offences he stood accused of. That being so, taking all these acts of violence against the applicant’s person together, and having regard to the length of time for which they had lasted and their purpose, the Court considered that they had been particularly serious and cruel, so that they must have caused Mr Dikme “acute” pain and suffering; they accordingly warranted the classification of torture, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.   In addition, the Court observed that, more than eight years after the incident complained of, the investigation did not seem to have produced any tangible result and that to date the officers of the section concerned, who had charge of Mr Dikme while he was in police custody and had therefore been responsible for the ill-treatment noted in the medical certificates, whose contents were known to the authorities, remained unidentified.   That being so, the Court could only find that there had been no thorough and effective investigation of Mr Dikme’s plausible allegation that he had been ill-treated while in police custody. Consequently, it considered that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account also.   Article 6   The Court observed that, on appeal by the principal public prosecutor and Mr Dikme, the Court of Cassation had quashed the applicant’s conviction of 26 June 1998.   The case had been remitted to the State Security Court, where it was still pending. The Court was therefore not in a position to assess the overall fairness of the proceedings against Mr   Dikme and considered that it could not speculate as to what the State Security Court’s decision would be or about what the outcome of any further appeal on points of law might be, since it would still be open to the applicant to exercise that remedy if in the end he thought that his trial had infringed the rights he was now asserting before the Court. That being so, the Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c).   Article 8   The Court observed that in order to specify the obligations which Article 8 imposed on Contracting States in the matter of prison visits it was necessary to have regard to the normal and reasonable requirements of imprisonment and the scope of the margin of appreciation which was accordingly to be left to the national authorities when they regulated contacts between a prisoner and his family.   However, even supposing that the circumstance complained of by Mrs Dikme amounted to an “interference”, there was no reason to think that the respondent State had overstepped the limits of the margin of appreciation it enjoyed in the matter in any way.   In short, there had been no violation of Mrs Dikme’s rights under Article 8.   Article 41   The Court considered that Mr Dikme had sustained non-pecuniary damage which the findings of violations in the judgment were not sufficient to make good. Having regard to its previous findings, the Court awarded him 200,000 French francs (FRF), to be converted into Turkish liras. It awarded 10,000 FRF for costs and expenses.   ***   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. [1] Judge elected in respect of San Marino. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.