CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 octobre 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     703   10.10.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SATIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment [1] in the case of   Satık and Others v. Turkey. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights by reason of an assault carried out on the applicants, prisoners, by gendarme officers.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each of the applicants 5,000 pounds sterling (GBP) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded an overall sum of GBP 5,000 for legal costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Murat Satık, Kadir Satık, Ali Haydar Özdemir, Songül Diribaş, Fesih Yılmaz, Saime Sefer, Yaşar Yağcı, Terzan Adıbelli, Mehmet Ermiş and Abdülkadir Eraslan, are all Turkish nationals. At the time of the events given rise to the application the applicants were on remand in Buca Prison, İzmir.   On 20 July 1995 the applicants, along with twelve other prisoners, were taken from their cells to an area of Buca Prison in order to be brought before the İzmir State Security Court for trial. They refused to be searched. The prison administration enlisted the help of gendarmes who were waiting outside the prison to accompany the prisoners to court. According to the applicants, they were then attacked by prison staff and gendarme officers using truncheons and wooden planks. They sustained various injuries. Some of the applicants had to be kept in hospital.   The Government disputed this version of the events. They maintained that the applicants linked arms as part of a protest against being searched and, being bunched together, fell on top of each other when descending the staircase on the way to the prison exit.   The İzmir public prosecutor carried out an investigation on the day of the incident. He took statements from several of the applicants. Others were interviewed later. All the applicants maintained that they were physically assaulted when engaged in a peaceful protest. Medical reports drawn up on the applicants indicated that they had   been hit on the head and/or other parts of the body. The prison staff interviewed by the public prosecutor affirmed the Government’s account of the incident.   The public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the Director of Buca Prison and the staff. The case file on the involvement of the gendarme officers in the incident was transferred to the İzmir Administrative Council on 11 April 1996. The case file went missing after it was sent by the Council to the Divisional Gendarme Command of Buca Prison for comment. On 1 May 2000, the İzmir Administrative Council decided that no investigation should be opened against any of the gendarme officers present at the time of the prison incident. On the other hand, criminal proceedings have been opened against three gendarme officers in connection with the missing case file.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26   July   1995.   The case was transferred to the Court on 1   November   1998 and declared admissible on 31   August   1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment   Complaints   The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they were severely beaten by prison staff and gendarmes following their refusal to submit to a search procedure before being taken to court. They also complained, under Article 2, that the intention was to kill them.   Decision of the Court   The Government’s preliminary objections   In their submissions at the admissibility stage of the proceedings the Government drew attention to the measures which the authorities were taking to investigate the applicants’ allegations. The Court considered that this objection could only be properly examined in the context of an examination of the effectiveness of the investigation carried out by the authorities under Article 3 of the Convention. For this reason, it deferred its response to the Government’s objection pending its consideration of the merits of the Article 3 complaint. Article 3 of the Convention   The Court recalled that, in respect of persons deprived of their liberty, including prisoners like the applicants, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by their own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3. It is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation as to how any injuries sustained by such persons came about.   The Court noted that in the instant case the applicants complained that they were subjected to a severe and unjustified beating by State agents whereas the Government contended that the applicants sustained their injuries as a result of a fall which they had provoked by their own protest action.   For the Court, the Government’s explanation was inconsistent with the nature of the applicants’ injuries as recorded in the medical reports. It also observed that the applicants, when questioned by the public prosecutor, were unequivocal in their account that they had been assaulted. In the Court’s opinion, the Government had not submitted any elements which would serve to rebut a presumption that the applicants were deliberately beaten as alleged.   The Court further noted that regard must be had to the threat that disobedience on the part of inmates may well degenerate into bloodshed requiring the prison authorities to enlist the help of the security forces. However, it considered that when prison authorities have recourse to such outside help to deal with an incident within the confines of the prison there should exist some form of independent monitoring of the action taken in order to ensure accountability for the force used including the issue of its proportionality. In the instant case, the public prosecutor was obliged to reconstruct the events at issue on the basis of the statements taken from the applicants and other prisoners and of his interviews with prison officials. It would appear that the statements which he took from the latter officials were sufficient to persuade him of the credibility of the official account of what transpired on the day in question.   The Court also observed that on 1 May 2000 the İzmir Administrative Council decided not to authorise the opening of a criminal investigation into the gendarmes’ behaviour at Buca Prison at the time of the incident. This decision was reached more than four years after the case file was transferred to the Council. During that time the case file disappeared after it was sent to gendarme officials at Buca Prison. For the Court, the authorities’ failure to secure the integrity of important case documents must be considered a most serious defect in the investigative process and the absence of the case file must cast doubt on the merits of the decision finally reached by the İzmir Administrative Council on 1 May 2000 not to prosecute any of the gendarme officers.   Having regard to the absence of a plausible explanation on the part of the authorities, the Court was led to conclude that the applicants were beaten and injured by State agents as alleged and that the treatment to which they were subjected amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In view of the serious shortcomings in the investigation into the incident, the Court further found that the Government’s preliminary objection could not be sustained. In the Court’s opinion, the inadequacy of the investigation was in itself inconsistent with the duty devolving on the authorities of a respondent State under Article 3 of the Convention to initiate an investigation into an arguable claim that an individual has been seriously ill-treated at the hands of its agents. Article 2 of the Convention   The Court concluded that it was unnecessary to examine this complaint separately in view of the above finding on the applicants’ Article 3 complaint.   Article 41 of the Convention   The Court awarded each of the applicants the sum of GBP 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded them an overall sum of GBP 5,000 for legal 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] 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.