CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 mars 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 117 March 2009 Horoz v. Turkey - 1639/03 Judgment 31.3.2009 [Section II] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Death of a prisoner following lengthy hunger strike: no violation   Facts : In 1999 the applicant’s son was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention for attacking the constitutional order of the State and for various terrorist acts. In 2001, while in prison, he joined a hunger strike which subsequently became a “death fast”, in which only sugared water and vitamins were accepted. He was hospitalised on several occasions, in particular after losing consciousness.   In a report in 2001 the Institute of Forensic Medicine diagnosed a “terminal failure as a result of insufficient nutrition” and recommended that the applicant’s son be released for six months as his state of health was incompatible with imprisonment. His lawyer filed an application for his release, which was dismissed by the National Security Court on the grounds that Article 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided for conditional release on health grounds, applied to “convicted persons” and not to individuals in “pre-trial detention”, and that treatment could be provided in the prison wing of a civilian hospital. A few days later the subject died in the prison wing of the civilian hospital. His lawyer requested disciplinary action and criminal proceedings to be brought against the prosecutor and judges involved in the case. The Ministry of Justice had an investigation opened, but the prosecuting authorities found that there was no case to answer. Law : The death in this case was clearly the result of the hunger strike. It was true that the Institute of Forensic Medicine had recommended that the applicant’s son be released for six months, which the judicial authorities had refused to do, and the subject had died a few days later. While it would have been desirable for the subject to be released following that report, there was no evidence permitting the Court to criticise the judicial authorities’ assessment of the information contained in it. Nor was there any sign of arbitrariness or any element enabling it to challenge the conclusion that there was no case to answer in the investigation into the conduct of the prosecutor and judges involved. As to whether it had been advisable to maintain the applicant’s son in detention, the Court could not substitute its own assessment for that of the domestic courts, particularly when, as here, the authorities had amply satisfied their obligation to protect the subject’s physical integrity, specifically through the administration of appropriate medical treatment. Lastly, there was no evidence that he had been deprived in the prison environment of certain treatment he could have received had he been released. It was impossible to establish a causal link between the refusal to release him and his death. Accordingly, having examined all the relevant facts and bearing in mind the Government’s assurances as to the administration of the necessary medical care in prisons, and the findings of the delegation from the Court that visited prison establishments as part of a mission conducted in connection with a first group of cases, the Court found that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the applicant’s son’s detention conditions had in themselves amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. For the same reasons, and for those mentioned above, it was unable to say that the refusal to release the applicant’s son had amounted to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes