CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 juin 2007

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 378 5.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Two Chamber judgments concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] – available only in English – in the cases of:   Hürriyet Yılmaz v. Turkey (application no. 17721/02); and, Sacettin Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 38419/02).   The Court held unanimously that, in both cases, there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the ill-treatment to which the applicants were subjected while in police custody; and, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the failure to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment.   The Court held unanimously that, in the case of Sacettin Yıldız , there had also been: a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), no award was made in either case; the applicant in Sacettin Yıldız did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the specified time-limit and the applicant in Hürriyet Yılmaz submitted no claim for just satisfaction.   The Court considered that, in Sacettin Yıldız , a retrial or reopening of the case, if requested, would represent in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c).   1.     Principal facts   Hürriyet Yılmaz The applicant, Hürriyet Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and is currently detained in Isparta Prison (Turkey).   In August 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being involved in an armed robbery by police officers from the organised crime unit of İstanbul Security Directorate. He was allegedly beaten severely on his neck and back during his arrest, which was witnessed by many of his relatives, including his children. He was subsequently taken to the Security Directorate Building in Gayrettepe, without being medically examined.   The applicant alleged that he was blindfolded, interrogated and tortured at the security directorate; in particular, that he was stripped naked, punched, beaten with a truncheon, and had his testicles squeezed.   On 3 August 1996 the applicant was taken to Haydarpaşa Hospital and examined by a doctor, who reported no signs of injury on the applicant’s body. The same day, the applicant was placed in detention on remand.   In September 1996, complaining of a stiff neck and facial paralysis, the applicant went to see the prison doctor, who transferred him to Kartal Hospital.   On 16 September 1996 the applicant filed a complaint with the public prosecutor and maintained that he had been severely beaten during his arrest.   On 15 October 1996 Kartal Hospital found that the applicant was suffering from post-traumatic spinal disorders and that he had an old fracture on his C6 vertebrae.   On 27 November 1996 the applicant gave a statement to the public prosecutor, and repeated his allegations. He maintained that he had been severely beaten on his neck during his arrest.   The public prosecutor took statements from the eye-witnesses to the applicant’s arrest (the applicant’s relatives who corroborated his account) and the four police officers involved (who denied the allegations).   Upon the request of the public prosecutor, İstanbul Forensic Medical Institution prepared a final report (based on the medical report from Kartal Hospital) dated 23 March 1998, which   concluded that the applicant’s injuries meant that he was unfit to work for 25 days. The fracture on his vertebrae and other disorders were estimated to be at least three weeks old on 15 October 1996.   On 3 June 1998 criminal proceedings were brought against the four police officers concerned for ill-treatment. The case was later transferred to İstanbul Assize Court, which, on 14 September 2000, acquitted the police officers on the ground of lack of evidence. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   Sacettin Yıldız The applicant, Sacettin Yıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.   On 18 August 2001 he was taken into custody by police officers from Istanbul Security Directorate, on suspicion of being involved in the murder of two sisters.   The applicant claimed that, during police questioning, he was given electric shocks and beaten on the soles of his feet by police officers and that, despite his requests, he was not provided with legal assistance. In statements, dated 19 August 2001, which had been drafted by the police, he confessed to his involvement in the murder and gave a detailed explanation as to the facts of the incident. On 24 August 2001, on the public prosecutor’s request, the applicant was examined by a doctor from Kadıköy Forensic Medicine Department, who found that: he had a purple and pink lesion of 15x13 cm under his right foot and two lesions of 3x5 cm and 8x10cm under his left foot. The report concluded that it would be appropriate for the applicant to rest for ten days.   Later the same day, the applicant was taken to see the Kadıköy Public Prosecutor, where he repeated his earlier confessions and stated that he had not been ill-treated by the police. He explained that the injuries on his feet were the result of wearing his shoes for too long. He repeated those statements to a judge at Kadıköy Magistrates’ Court, who ordered his detention on remand.   According to a forensic report dated August 2001, the applicant’s fingerprints did not match those found at the crime scene.   On 10 October 2001 Istanbul Bar Association appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant.   On 25 October 2001 the applicant appeared before Kadıköy Assize Court, where he denied all allegations against him, contending that, during his detention, he had confessed to the crime under duress. Moreover, he maintained that the police had threatened to take him back to the police station if he did not also confess before the public prosecutor and the judge at the Magistrates’ Court.   On 4 December 2003 the Assize Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment, relying mainly on his confessions. The judgment was upheld on 6 May 2005 by the Court of Cassation on the ground that the applicant’s confessions provided evidence of his involvement in the murder.   On 7 January 2002 the applicant filed a complaint with Kadıköy Public Prosecutor, complaining about the ill-treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected during his detention in police custody. He also submitted the medical report dated 24 August 2001. His complaint and subsequent appeals were all rejected.   2.     Procedure   The application in Hürriyet Yılmaz was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8   January 2002. The application in Sacettin Yıldız was lodged on 3 October 2002.   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   In the cases of Hürriyet Yılmaz and Sacettin Yıldız the applicants both relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Mr Yıldız also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).       Decision of the Court   Hürriyet Yılmaz   Article 3   Ill-treatment The Court noted that the medical certificates dated 15 October 1996 and 23 March 1998 showed that the applicant suffered from post-traumatic vertebral disorders and had an old fracture on his C6 vertebrae. It was also established that those injuries had been sustained at least three weeks before 15 October 1996. The Court noted that that corresponded with the date of the applicant’s arrest. Furthermore, the applicant’s allegations and statements to the prosecutor and the criminal and assize courts were consistent. His submissions were corroborated by witness statements and the findings in the medical reports matched his allegation that he was beaten severely on his back and neck at the time of his arrest. The Court further observed that the Government failed to provide an explanation as to how the injuries noted in the applicant’s medical reports were sustained. Considering the circumstances of the case as a whole, and in the absence of a plausible explanation from the Government, the Court found that the applicant’s injuries were the result of treatment for which the State bore responsibility. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3.   Investigation The Court noted that, following the applicant’s complaint, a public prosecutor started an investigation into his allegations. However, it was not persuaded that that investigation was conducted diligently or that it was “effective”. The Court concluded that the authorities failed to conduct the investigation with due expedition. Because of that delay, the applicant and his witnesses were deprived of the opportunity to meet the accused police officers face to face and identify them.   The Court further noted with concern that at no stage of the proceedings was a statement taken from the doctor who drafted the medical report dated 1 August 1996 or from the applicant’s lawyer. It also appeared from the investigation file that neither the prosecution authorities nor the domestic courts tried to provide an explanation as to how the applicant’s spinal disorders and the fracture on his vertebrae were sustained.   The Court concluded that the applicant’s claim that he was ill-treated during his arrest was not subject to an effective investigation by the domestic authorities, in violation of Article 3.   Sacettin Yıldız   Article 3   Ill-treatment The Court noted that the applicant was not medically examined at the beginning of his detention, that the findings contained in the medical report of 24 August 2000 were consistent with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and that the Government had not provided a plausible explanation for those injuries. In the light of the circumstances of the case as a whole and in the absence of a plausible explanation by the Government, the Court concluded that the injuries noted in that medical report were the result of ill-treatment for which the State bore responsibility, in violation of Article 3. Investigation The Court noted that the public prosecutor started an investigation as soon as the applicant filed a petition, complaining that he was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody. However, it appeared from the case file that, when giving the decision of non-prosecution, the public prosecutor only relied on the applicant’s statement dated 24 August 2001,   disregarding the medical report which noted serious injuries on the soles of the applicant’s feet which were hardly compatible with wearing shoes for a long time. Moreover, the case file did not reveal whether the public prosecutor took down the testimony of the applicant, the police officers or any other possible witnesses. The Court concluded that the applicant’s claim that he was ill-treated during his arrest was not subject to an effective investigation by the domestic authorities, in violation of Article 3.   Article 6   The Court reiterated that it had already found that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 while he was in police custody. Furthermore, it was not disputed between the parties that the applicant did not receive any legal assistance during the custody period and that he had made statements to the police, public prosecutor and a judge in the absence of his lawyer. The applicant also denied the accuracy of his “confessions” throughout the proceedings before Kadıköy Assize Court, alleging that he had been subjected to ill-treatment.   Turkish legislation did not usually attach to such confessions (ie. confessions obtained during questioning but denied in court) consequences which were decisive for the prospects of the defence. However, Kadıköy Assize Court used those statements, among other things, as the main evidence in its judgment convicting the applicant, despite his denial of their accuracy.   In those circumstances, the Court found that the use of the applicant’s statements obtained under torture during the preliminary investigation, in the absence of his lawyer, in the criminal proceedings brought against him, rendered his trial as a whole unfair. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c).   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.