CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 9 septembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sCE52BCAA { width:20.95pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     418   9.9.2002     Press release issued by the Registrar   T.A. v. TURKEY REFERRED TO GRAND CHAMBER     The case T.A. v. Turkey (application no. 26307/95) has been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In its Chamber judgment of 9 April 2002 (available only in English) the Court decided, by six votes to one, to strike out the case on the basis of a unilateral declaration from the Turkish Government.   Summary of the Facts T.A. is a Turkish national whose complaint concerns the disappearance of his brother, Mehmet Salim A., a farmer living in Ambar, a village in the Bismil district of south-east Turkey. His brother was abducted in August 1994 by two unidentified persons - allegedly plain-clothes police officers. The applicant complained of the unlawfulness and excessive length of his brother’s detention, of the ill-treatment and acts of torture to which his brother was allegedly subjected in detention, and of the failure to provide his brother with the necessary medical care in detention. The applicant further complained that his brother was deprived of the services of a lawyer and of any contact with his family.   Complaints The applicant relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and ill-treatment), 5   (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18   (limitation on use of restrictions of rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Chamber Judgment The Turkish Government offered to pay ex gratia 70,000 pounds sterling for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs.   The Government also made a declaration stating that it regretted the actions which had led to the application, in particular the disappearances in question and the anguish caused to their families:   “It is accepted that unrecorded deprivations of liberty and insufficient investigations into allegations of disappearance, such as in the present case[s], constitute violations of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures with a view to ensuring that all deprivations of liberty are fully and accurately recorded by the authorities and that effective investigations into alleged disappearances are carried out in accordance with their obligations under the Convention. The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place...”   T.A. asked the Court to reject the Government’s initiative, arguing that the terms of the declaration were unsatisfactory. He argued that, among other things, it contained no admission that there had been any Convention violation concerning his application or that Mehmet Salim had been abducted by State agents and that he must be presumed to have died, that it contained no undertaking to investigate the circumstances of the case and that the compensation would be paid ex gratia.   Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the scope and extent of the various undertakings referred to therein and the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.     ***   Further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:     Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)     Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)     Stéphanie Klein (telephone: (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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.