CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 décembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       SECOND SECTION Application no. 19222/09 Süleyman DEMİR and Hasan DEMİR against Turkey lodged on 26 March 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Süleyman Demir and Mr Hasan Demir, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1951 and 1973 respectively and live in Hakkari. They are represented before the Court by Mr F. Timur, a lawyer practising in Hakkari. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. İ.D., a non-commissioned officer, contacted the second applicant and asked him to ask his father, who is the first applicant, to go to the Çukurca gendarmerie station. At around 5 p.m. on 17 July 2007 the first applicant, accompanied by the second applicant, went to the gendarmerie station. On their arrival the second applicant waited at the entrance of the station and the first applicant was taken into the office of Major M.C. where he was subjected to ill-treatment by İ.D. and M.C. The two officers accused the first applicant of providing support to a terrorist organisation (the PKK), and of making propaganda for a political party, the DTP (Democratic Society Party). Using box tape, officers M.C. and İ.D. attached a hand grenade to the first applicant’s face. An object was forcefully put into his nose and mouth, and he was threatened that his eyes would be gouged out. He was also repeatedly hit with an object on the left-side of his face and on his chest. The ill-treatment and accusations continued for some time with accompanying threats to kill him and his family. After his release the first applicant and his son returned to their home, and later the first applicant went to Çukurca Health Centre. According to a medical report issued there at 7.30 p.m. the same day, there was swelling and a blood clot on the left side of the first applicant’s face. The report also mentions a restriction in the movement of his arms due to pain. After his examination at the health centre the first applicant was transferred to the Hakkari State Hospital where he was re-examined and subsequently discharged. On 18 July 2007 the first applicant went to the Hakkari Prosecutor’s office and made a formal complaint against the military officers İ.D. and M.C. for torture, insults and intimidation. On 27 July 2007 the Hakkari Prosecutor decided that he did not have jurisdiction ratione loci to examine the complaint, and referred the complaint to the Çukurca Prosecutor. On 1 August 2007 the Çukurca Prosecutor decided that he also did not have the requisite jurisdiction, and referred the case file to the Van Military Criminal Court. On 05 September 2008 the Van Military Prosecutor decided not to open an investigation into the first applicant’s allegations. The first applicant lodged an objection against this decision. Having examined the objection lodged by the first applicant, on 23   September 2008 the Ağrı Military Court quashed the Van Military Prosecutor’s decision and ordered that criminal charges be brought against the two military officers. In accordance with this decision criminal proceedings were instigated before the Van Military Court against İ.D. and M.C. On 4 November 2010 the Van Military Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to try the case, and forwarded the case file to the Çukurca Criminal Court of First Instance. According to the information provided by the applicant in March 2012, the proceedings were still pending before that court on that date. COMPLAINTS The first applicant complains that the ill-treatment to which he was subjected by the two officers at the Çukurca Gendarmerie Station, coupled with the insults and intimidation, was in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He also complains that no effective investigation was conducted by the national authorities into his complaints and that the proceedings before the national courts were not concluded within a reasonable time. Without relying on any Convention Article the second applicant complains that he suffered non-pecuniary damage on account of his seeing his father bleeding after the ill-treatment. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention the first applicant complains that his detention at the gendarmerie station was unlawful. Finally, the first applicant alleges a violation of Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the first applicant Süleyman Demir been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In this connection, are the national authorities showing the necessary diligence in investigating the first applicant’s allegations?