CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 22 avril 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sBC226A6B { margin-left:2.1pt; border:1.5pt double #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7C35CBBD { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s9A734C56 { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBF10AB1 { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A08084E { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s4CCA2433 { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s2AB3D1C6 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sA6524EF { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E7C0AC9 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sAAECE211 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } Resolution ResDH(2004)28 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 22 May 2001 (Friendly settlements) in 3 cases against Turkey (see appendix) relating to the excessive length of detention in police custody   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 April 2004 at the 879th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the 3 cases listed in the appendix to this resolution, which were delivered on 22 May 2001 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that these cases originated in applications (see appendix) against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights between 3 February and 3 June 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by 9 Turkish nationals, and that the Court, seised of the cases under Article 5, paragraph   2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints related to the excessive length of detention in police custody;   Whereas in its judgments of 22 May 2001 concerning these cases the Court, after having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike these cases out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the cases before the Grand Chamber;   Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlements it was agreed that the Government of Turkey would pay the applicants certain sums (see appendix), within three months as from the notification of the judgments;   Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, on the dates indicated in the appendix, within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlement, Recalling that, as regard the applicants’ complaint declared admissible in these cases, measures had already been taken, notably through the amendments of the legislation concerning length of police custody (see Interim Resolution ResDH(99)434 in the Aksoy case and Resolution ResDH(2002)110 in the Sakık and others case);   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that the Committee of Ministers has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2004)28   Details of the sums agreed to in the friendly settlements:   Case   Application No. Global sum Payment on Değerli   31896/96 25   000 French francs 16/07/2001 Özata and others   30453/96 180   000 French francs 06/07/2001 Şanli and Erol   36760/97 70   000 French francs 16/07/2001