CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 février 2007

.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. 94 February 2007 Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey - 56760/00 Judgment 27.2.2007 [Section II] Article 2 Article 2-2 Use of force Killings during an armed clash with security forces and lack of domestic investigation into the circumstances of the deaths: no violation, violation   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Mutilation of corpses – ears cut off after death: no violation (as regards the deceased)   Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Applicants presented with the mutilated bodies of relatives: violation   Facts : The applicants’ brother and son were killed in the course of an armed clash between members of an armed organisation and security forces. Post mortem examinations revealed that one or both of the deceased’s ears had been cut off, in whole or in part. The authorities nevertheless took no investigative steps regarding the circumstances of the deaths. An investigation was opened into the applicants’ allegations that their relatives had been tortured before death or that their corpses had been mutilated by the security forces. Four gendarmerie officers were charged with “insulting corpses”. Less than two years after the events, the criminal proceedings were suspended, with the possibility that a final sentence be imposed should the accused be convicted of a further intentional offence within five years. Law : Article   2(2) – Killings : Given the absence of an investigation initiated at domestic level for the purpose of ascertaining whether the force used during the armed clash had been necessary, the Court was unable to establish “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicants’ relatives had been deprived of their lives by the security forces as a result of a use of force which was no more than absolutely necessary. Conclusion : no substantive violation (unanimously). Investigation : The authorities failed to conduct an independent and impartial official investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicants’ relatives. Conclusion : procedural violation (unanimously). Article   3 – Act of mutilation itself : The ears had been cut off by the time the post mortem examination occurred. Prior to that examination, the corpses had been under the exclusive control of the security forces. Hence, the mutilation of the bodies occurred while in the hands of the State security forces. In the light of two cases in which members of the security forces deployed in the fight against terrorism in Turkey were accused of mutilating corpses after the death of the victims ( Akkum and Others and Kanlıbaş , judgments 2005, Case-Law Report / Information Note No. 73), the Court concluded that the ears were cut off after death. Nevertheless, the human quality is extinguished on death and the prohibition on ill-treatment is no longer applicable to corpses, despite the cruelty of the acts concerned. Conclusion : no violation in relation to the deceased (six votes to one). Applicants presented with the mutilated bodies of their relatives : As sister and father of the deceased, they could claim to be victims within the meaning of Article   34 and the suffering caused to them as a result of this mutilation amounted to degrading treatment (see Akkum and Others ). Conclusion : violation in respect of the applicants themselves (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to each applicant.   © 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