CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 30 septembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sFB4D0E3C { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBD4F1DE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:8.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3614B0A7 { height:17.75pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)102 [1]   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 9 cases against Turkey   (Applications Nos. 53918/00 (judgment of 2/08/2005, final on 2/01/2005), 44057/98 (judgment of 24/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003), 47311/99 (judgment of 9/10/2003, final on 9/01/2003), 49164/99 (judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/10/2003), 38870/02 (judgment of 20/05/2008, final on 20/08/2008), 29851/96 (judgment of 6/03/2001, final on 6/06/2001), 42741/98 (judgment of 23/10/2003, final on 24/03/2004), 56007/00 (judgment of 21/12/2004, final on 6/06/2005), 47165/99 (judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the applicants’ right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge in proceedings before state security courts, as well as the excessive length of proceedings in the Cengiz Sarıkaya case (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.             Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)102   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 9 cases against Turkey     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of military judges in proceedings before the state security courts which judged and convicted them (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1). The Cengiz Sarıkaya case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to obtain in a reasonable time a final determination of an accusation against him (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Önder Faik (53918/00) - - 1   500 EUR 1   500 EUR Paid on 1/02/2006 Isik Ozgur (44057/98) - - 1   500 EUR 1   500 EUR Paid on 26/12/2003 Ozkan Ertan (47311/99) - - 2   000 EUR 2 000 EUR Paid on 19/03/2004 Kılıç Ayşe (49164/99) - - 2   000 EUR 2   000 EUR Paid on 14/05/2004 Cengiz Sarıkaya (38870/02) No just satisfaction Cakar (42741/98) - 3   000 EUR 2   000 EUR 5   000 EUR Paid on 21/06/2004 Vural (56007/00) - - 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR Paid on 6/09/2005 Zana (29851/96) No just satisfaction Fadime Őzkan (47165/99) - - 2   000 EUR 2 000 EUR Paid on 14/05/2004   b) Individual measures   The President of the Turkish Republic excused Faik Önder from his sentence by an act of presidential amnesty, on account of his state of health. In the Cengiz Sarιkaya, Cakar and Vural cases, the applicants died in 2006, 1999 and 2002 respectively. In all other cases the applicants, having served their prison sentences, were freed at various dates.   II.   General measures   General measures to avoid new violations, similar to those found in these judgments, were taken in the context of the Çıraklar case (Resolution DH(99)555). In particular, the amendment of Article 143 of the Turkish Constitution (Law No. 4388 adopted 18/06/1999) and the entry into force of Law No. 4390 on 22/06/1999, put an end to the role of military judges on state security courts. Moreover on 07/05/2004, Parliament adopted a constitutional amendment abolish state security courts.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 September 2009 at the 1065th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies