CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 septembre 1997

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s768E2FDC { width:21pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. September 1997 Aydın v. Turkey - 23178/94 Judgment 25.9.1997 [GC] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Effective investigation Alleged rape and ill-treatment of a female detainee and failure of authorities to conduct an effective investigation into her complaint that she was tortured in this way: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Government failed to raise this objection at the admissibility stage of the proceedings before the Commission – estoppel. Conclusion : objection dismissed (eighteen votes to three). B.   Abuse of process Government also failed to raise this objection at the admissibility stage – estoppel. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Court’s assessment of the facts Reiteration of Court’s case-law on the role assigned to Commission in regard to the establishment of facts – Court accepts facts as established by the Commission having regard to its own careful examination of the evidence on which Commission based its findings – Commission justified in concluding that evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that applicant detained by security forces and raped and ill-treated while in detention. B.   Merits Evidence adduced proved beyond reasonable doubt that applicant raped and ill-treated in custody – rape of a detainee by an official of the State an especially grave and abhorrent form of ill-treatment – applicant 17 years old at the time – also subjected to other forms of physical and mental suffering – terrifying and humiliating experiences – accumulation of acts of violence, especially act of rape, amounted to torture – Court would have reached this conclusion on either ground taken separately. Conclusion : violation (fourteen votes to seven). III.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Applicant’s complaint that the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into her alleged suffering while in detention resulted in her being denied access to a court to seek compensation – essence of complaint concerns inadequacy of official investigation – Court considers it appropriate therefore to examine complaint at issue under Article 13. Conclusion : not necessary to consider complaint (twenty votes to one). IV.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Reaffirmation of Court’s case-law that where an individual has an arguable claim that he has been tortured by agents of the State, notion of an effective remedy entails, in addition to payment of compensation where appropriate, the conduct of a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to identification and punishment of culprits – in instant case authorities only carried out an incomplete inquiry – no meaningful measures taken to establish veracity of allegations – corroborating evidence not sought – medical reports perfunctory and not focused on whether applicant had in fact been raped – a thorough and effective investigation into an allegation of rape in custody implies also that victim be examined by competent, independent medical professionals – requirement not satisfied in instant case. Conclusion : violation (sixteen votes to five). V.   ARTICLE 25 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Alleged intimidation and harassment of applicant and her family in connection with her proceedings before the Convention institutions – reaffirmation of importance of ensuring that applicants and potential applicants are able to exercise their right of individual petition without being subjected to any form of pressure from authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints – however in case at issue insufficient factual basis to conclude that applicant or members of her family had been intimidated or harassed. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). VI.   ARTICLES 28 § 1 (a) AND 53 OF THE CONVENTION Alleged failure of authorities to respect their Convention obligations by persisting in acts of intimidation and harassment against the applicant and members of her family. Conclusion: not necessary to examine this complaint in view of conclusion under Article 25 (unanimously). VII.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: Compensation awarded having regard to seriousness of violation under Article 3. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum (eighteen votes to three). B.   Costs and expenses: Claim awarded in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum (sixteen votes to five).   © 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