CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 mai 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 53 May 2003 Tepe v. Turkey - 27244/95 Judgment 9.5.2003 [Section II] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Abduction and murder, allegedly by the police, in 1993, and adequacy of investigation: no violation, violation Article 38 Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities Delays and omissions by Government in responding to requests for documents, information and witnesses: failure to comply with Article 38 Facts : The applicant alleges that his son, a journalist for Özgür Gündem , was taken into detention and tortured by the police in 1993. His body was found a few days later. As the allegations were denied by the Government, a delegation of the European Commission of Human Rights took evidence in the case. Law : Article 38 § 1 (a) – The Court found that the Government had failed to provide any convincing explanation for delays and omissions in response to the Court’s requests for relevant documents, information and witnesses. It considered that inferences could be drawn from the Government’s conduct and furthermore found that the Government had failed to furnish all necessary facilities within the meaning of Article 38. Assessing the evidence, the Court was unable to make a finding as to who might have been responsible for the death of the applicant’s son. It considered that a finding to the effect that secret elements within the State security forces or persons with the connivance of the State authorities had abducted and killed him would be based more on conjecture, speculation and assumption than on reliable evidence. The only evidence that the applicant’s son had been detained in Diyarbakır prison was hearsay and the evidence before the Court was incomplete, inconsistent and even contradictory. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant’s allegations had not been sufficiently proved. Article 2 (killing) – While the circumstances in which the applicant’s son died and the fact that he was working for a pro-Kurdish newspaper militated in favour of the applicant’s allegations, the material in the case file did not enable the Court to conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant’s son had been abducted and killed by any State agent or person acting on behalf of the State authorities. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 2 (effective investigation) – There were striking omissions in the conduct of the investigation, such that the national authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant’s son. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 under its procedural limb. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Articles 3 and 5 – There was no factual basis on which to conclude that there had been any violation of these provisions. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). The Court found that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article   10, and concluded that there had been no violation of Articles 14 and 18. However, it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13. Article 41 – The Court made awards in respect of non-pecuniary and damage and costs and expenses.   © 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