CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 5 juillet 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s60A162EA { width:62.12pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   375 5.7.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final. [1] (The judgment is available only in French.)   S.B. and H.T. v. Turkey (application no. 54430/00)   Violation of Article 3 The applicants, S.B. and H.T., are Turkish nationals who were born in 1961 and 1960 respectively and live in Muş (Turkey).   While taking part in a gathering in Mollabaki (Malazgirt) on 15 August 1993, the applicants and many of the other demonstrators were arrested and taken into police custody.   On 20 August 1993 the applicants were examined by a doctor, who observed various signs of blows and other injuries to their bodies. The medical report drawn up following the examination stated that S.B.’s face was bleeding and that he had swelling on the left cheekbone, bruising on the lower lip, hyperaemia of between 1   mm and 1 cm on the testicles and penis, injuries with scabs on the right foot and loss of strength in the same foot. H.T. was found to have, among other things, three 1-mm bruises on the right testicle, loss of feeling and strength in the left elbow, loss of strength in the right leg, extensive hyperaemia and a wound on the left cheekbone, and a scratch with a scab on the frontal bone.   The applicants were detained pending trial and prosecuted under sections 27 and 34 of the Demonstrations and Public Meetings Act (Law no. 2911). They were accused of having distributed leaflets encouraging participation in an illegal demonstration and of having taken part in the demonstration.   On 16 January 1995 the applicants were provisionally released.   In a judgment of 14 September 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to two years and six months’ imprisonment. Their conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants submitted that they had been tortured while in police custody.   The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that strong presumptions of fact arose in respect of any injuries occurring while an individual was detained under the sole supervision of police officers. It was therefore incumbent on the Government to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to adduce evidence establishing facts that cast doubt on the victim’s allegations, especially if the allegations were supported by medical evidence.   Having regard to all the evidence before it and to the lack of any explanation from the Turkish Government as to the cause of the injuries observed on the applicants’ bodies, the Court considered that Turkey bore responsibility for the injuries.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. It awarded the applicants 15,000 euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 jointly for costs and expenses.   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.