CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 novembre 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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEDF00F56 { margin-left:18pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:serif; list-style-position:inside } .s90404E59 { width:6.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   817   14.11.2000 Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF TAŞ v. TURKEY     The European Court of Human Rights has notified in writing judgment in the case of Taş v. Turkey. The Court held:       by six votes to one that the Government were liable under Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights for the death of Muhsin Taş;     unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death of Muhsin Taş;     unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) in respect of Muhsin Taş;     unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant;     by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 in respect of the disappearance of Muhsin Taş;     by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of his death.     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded, by six votes to one, 20,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for non-pecuniary damage in respect of Muhsin Taş’s heirs and GBP 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage in respect of the applicant and, unanimously, GBP 14,795 for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by a Turkish national, Beşir Taş, who was born in 1943 and is resident in Tatvan.   On 14 October 1993, the applicant’s son Muhsin Taş was apprehended during an operation carried out by the security forces in Cizre. He was wounded in the knee. The same day, he was transferred by gendarmes to Şirnak, where a hospital record noted that he received treatment for his knee. No further record indicated where he was held in custody after that event. Two extended custody periods of fifteen days were granted by the public prosecutor. On or about 18 November 1993, the applicant was told that his son had absconded from custody while being taken on 9 November 1993 into the mountains to show terrorist locations to the security forces. The applicant told the public prosecutor that he feared that his son had been killed in custody. No investigation into his complaints was made by the public prosecutor until late 1995. In August 1996, the public prosecutor ceded jurisdiction to the Administrative Council, which appointed an inspector to investigate. The investigation concluded in a report of 12 February 1998 that it was not possible to establish the identities of the officers who signed the gendarme report which alleged that Muhsin Taş had escaped.         2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 June 1994. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission took evidence in May 1998. It adopted a report on 9 September 1999 in which it expressed the opinion by 27 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 2 and unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 in respect of Muhsin Tasş, that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant, that there had been a violation of Article 5 and 13 of the Convention and that there had been no violation of Articles 14 and 18. It referred the case to the Court on 23 October 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), 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 Taş complained that his son had been killed by the security forces (Article 2); that his son had been subject to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment while in custody (Article 3); that he had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment due to his son’s disappearance (Article 3); that his son had disappeared while in custody (Article 5); and of the lack of an effective investigation (Article 2 and 13).   Decision of the Court   Concerning the establishment of the facts   The Court accepted the findings of fact reached by the Commission after its hearing of evidence in this case. It also found that the late submission of information concerning the domestic investigation, which had been requested repeatedly by the Commission, deprived the Commission of the opportunity of summoning witnesses with potentially significant evidence. Consequently, the Government had fallen short of their obligations under former Article 28 § 1 (a) to furnish all necessary facilities to the Commission in its task of establishing the facts.           Article 2   i. The death of Muhsin Taş   Muhsin Taş had been taken into custody on 14 November 1993. No custody or other records had been provided showing where he had been taken or held after that date. The report of the alleged escape was undetailed and unsubstantiated, in particular since the signatories of the report had not been traced. In the circumstances, the Government had failed to provide any plausible explanation for what had happened to him. Given the length of time which had elapsed since his disappearance and the circumstances pertaining in the south-east of Turkey, the Court considered that Muhsin Taş must be presumed dead following his detention by the security forces. Consequently, liability for his death   was attributable to the respondent Government and there had been a violation of Article 2 on that account.   ii. Alleged inadequacy of the investigation   The Court noted that no investigation into the disappearance was conducted at the time of events. It was only when the case was communicated to the respondent Government that the public prosecutor commenced an investigation in late 1995. This investigation was taken over by the Administrative Council, a body made up of civil servants, under the authority of the Governor who was also responsible for the gendarmes under investigation. It ended inconclusively in February 1998, having failed to pursue with any determination the attempt to identify the officers who had signed the report which alleged that Muhsin Taş had escaped. The Court found that the investigation carried out into the disappearance of the applicant’s son was neither prompt, adequate or effective and therefore disclosed a breach of the State’s procedural obligations to protect the right to life. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on this account also.   Article 3   a. Concerning Muhsin Taş   The Court noted that Muhsin Taş had received prompt and effective medical treatment for his injury. There was no evidence as to what happened to him afterwards during his time in custody. It found an insufficient basis on which to conclude that there had been a violation of Article 3 in his regard.   b. Concerning the applicant   The applicant had spent a month in the Cizre area attempting to obtain news of his son after his apprehension. The public prosecutor did not take any investigative steps in reaction to the applicant’s expressed fears that his son had been killed in custody. Having regard to the indifference and callousness of the authorities to the applicant’s concerns and the acute anguish and uncertainty which he has suffered as a result and continues to suffer, the Court found that the applicant could claim to be a victim of the authorities’ conduct, to an extent which disclosed a breach of Article 3. Article 5   The Court recalled that Muhsin Taş’s detention had not been recorded in any custody or other record after he had been taken into custody on 14 November 1993. The Government had failed to account for what had happened to him after that date. Two periods of fifteen days had been granted by the public prosecutor. Only exceptionally could periods of more than four days before release or appearance before a judicial officer be justified under Article 5 § 3. The Court concluded that Muhsin Taş was held in detention in the complete absence of the safeguards contained in Article 5 and that there has been a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security of person guaranteed under that provision.   Article 13   As there was an arguable claim of violations of Articles 2 and 5, the authorities were under an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of Muhsin Taş’s disappearance. However, no effective criminal investigation could be considered as having been conducted. The applicant was thereby denied an effective remedy in respect of that disappearance and access to any other available remedies at his disposal, including a claim for compensation.   Article 41   As regarded non-pecuniary damage, it awarded GBP 20,000 in respect of Muhsin Taş’s heirs and GBP 10,000 in respect of the applicant. For costs and expenses, it awarded GBP 14,795, less the amount awarded for legal aid by the Council of Europe.   Judge Gölcüklü expressed a dissenting opinion and this is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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] Elected as the judge in respect of San Marino. [2] This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.