CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 juin 1998

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; 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 } .s1B0CDA5E { width:18.22pt; display:inline-block } .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. June 1998 Tekin v. Turkey - 22496/93 Judgment 9.6.1998 Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Treatment in police custody: 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.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS Court will exercise fact-finding powers only in exceptional circumstances – Commission had opportunity to see and hear oral testimony – where key witnesses failed to attend hearings before Commission, respondent State not justified in complaining of insufficiency of evidence – acceptance of facts as found by Commission. II.   ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION Facts found by Commission do not support conclusion that applicant suffered interference with right to life. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION Applicant held in cold, dark cell, blindfolded and treated so as to leave wounds and bruises on body – inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (six votes to three). IV.   ARTICLES 5 § 1 AND 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Complaints not pursued. Conclusion : not necessary to examine. V.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION Not established that applicant’s detention and treatment in custody amounted to interference with freedom of expression. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). VI.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Public prosecutor to whom applicant complained of ill-treatment on release from custody took no action – investigation commenced after communication of application by Commission inadequate. Conclusion : violation (seven votes to two). VII.   ARTICLES 14 AND 18 OF THE CONVENTION No evidence of breaches of these provisions. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). VIII.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: compensation for non-pecuniary damage. B.   Costs and expenses: awarded on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sums (eight votes to one).   © 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