CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 mai 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     369   22.5.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ALTAY v. TURKEY   In a judgment notified today [1] in writing in the case of Altay v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to freedom and security) of the Convention; and a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints lodged by the applicant under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 100,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage, and FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   Mehmet Altay, a Turkish national, born in 1956, was detained in Gebze Prison at the material time.   Suspected of being a member of an illegal armed organisation, the “TKP/B-SHB” (Turkish Communist Party, an armed movement) and of having carried out, among other things, bomb attacks and armed robberies on that organisation’s behalf, Mr Altay was arrested by police in Istanbul on 2 February 1993 and taken into police custody in the anti-terrorist wing of the security police headquarters in Istanbul. On 15 February 1993, that is, on the fourteenth day of his custody, he underwent a medical examination. The medical report recorded a pinkish scar, from a recent injury, measuring one centimetre on the left-hand side of the applicant’s forehead and two scars measuring two and three centimetres in the region of his left temple. The court doctor prescribed three days’ sick leave. On the following day Mr Altay was brought before the public prosecutor and the judge of the Istanbul State Security Court. The judge ordered him to be placed in pre-trial detention.   Subsequently, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint on 11 May 1993 alleging ill-treatment by the police officers who had been on duty during his time in police custody. The public prosecutor forwarded the complaint to the Istanbul Governor’s Office. The Istanbul Governor instructed the head of the security police headquarters to investigate the complaint. In a letter of 21 June 1993 to the Istanbul Governor’s office, the head of the Istanbul security police headquarters reported the result of the investigation conducted following the applicant’s complaint. He noted the following: “the record of arrest and other records show that the police officers had used force to arrest Mr Altay and that during questioning he had attempted to escape and had hit his head against the door. Furthermore, in their statements the officers had denied all the allegations”. Lastly, he requested the Istanbul Governor to discontinue the case on grounds of insufficient incriminating evidence. The Istanbul Governor granted that request.   In the meantime, on 4 March 1993, the public prosecutor at the State Security Court charged the applicant with being one of the founders and leaders of an armed group whose purpose was the destruction of the constitutional order and national unity, and of having carried out bomb attacks and armed robberies on behalf of the organisation in question.   The Istanbul State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and one military judge with the rank of colonel, delivered its judgment on 26 May 1994. It held that Mr Altay was guilty of the offence as charged, committed on behalf of the TKP/B-SHB with the aim of overthrowing the constitutional order, and sentenced him to capital punishment commuted to life imprisonment under Article 146 of the Criminal Code which made it an offence to make any attempt to overthrow the constitutional order or undermine national unity. On 2   June 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application [Note1] was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14   April 1993. It was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 and allocated to the First Section of the Court. In a decision of 15 June 1999 the Chamber declared the application admissible.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of [Note2] seven judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges , [Note3] Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc judge,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [Note4] [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that Articles 3, 5 § 3 and 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention had been violated.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court reiterated its case-law according to which, in assessing evidence, the general practice had hitherto been to apply the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. However, such proof could follow from the co-existence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions. It noted, inter alia , that strong presumptions of fact arose where a person was injured during police custody while entirely under the supervision of police officers during that period. It was thus incumbent on the Government to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries had been caused and to adduce evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the victim’s allegations, particularly where they were supported by medical certificates.   The Court pointed out first that, according to the case file, although Mr Altay had been arrested on 2 February 1993, he had not been examined by a doctor until 15 February 1993, that is, fourteen days after his arrest. The doctor had recorded three scars from injuries to the applicant’s head, and that no one claimed that those injuries could have dated back to a period prior to the applicant’s arrest.   According to the head of the Istanbul security police headquarters, who had been appointed by the Governor to investigate the case, Mr Altay’s injuries had been caused both by the force used by the police in effecting the arrest and by an incident during questioning in which the applicant had attempted to escape, hitting his head against the door. With regard to the use of force during the arrest, the Court noted that the applicant had not undergone a medical examination following his arrest, which might have established the marks of the injuries, if any. It had to be pointed out in this connection that if Mr Altay’s injuries had been caused by the use of force on his arrest, it would have been incumbent on the Government to adduce the relevant proof, namely medical certificates and detailed records showing that the use of force by the police had been proportionate and absolutely necessary. That had not been done in the case in question. As to an attempted escape during questioning, the Court noted that the explanation given by the head of the police contained conclusions which were not based on any established fact and did not indicate any date on which the injuries had occurred. Furthermore, the police officers’ records and statements on which that explanation was based had not been sent to the complainant or to the Court.   More importantly, no domestic authority in charge of investigating Mr Altay’s complaint, be it the public prosecutor who had received the complaint or the head of police appointed by the Istanbul Governor to investigate the case, had ever made any attempt to hear evidence from the complainant who could have supplied his version of the facts.   It had to be reiterated that where the events in issue lay wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control, the complainant’s account of events was a fundamental factor in determining the causes of the injuries. The investigating authorities could then verify the truth of the allegations of ill-treatment by comparing the injuries recorded in the medical certificates with the account given. In conclusion, the Court observed that the evidence did not confirm the head of police’s statement that the injuries could have been caused during the arrest and/or during an attempted escape. In the absence of a plausible explanation, the Court considered it established in the case in question that the injuries in respect of which marks had been found on the person of the applicant had been caused by treatment for which the Government were responsible.   The Court also noted that the applicant had been taken into police custody in apparent good health and had subsequently sustained injury to one of his vital organs, namely his head. Those injuries had been recorded on the fourteenth day of his time in police custody and had necessitated three days’ sick leave. Throughout the fifteen days he had spent in police custody, Mr Altay had been deprived of any access to a lawyer and - until the fourteenth day - to a doctor. He had therefore been isolated and dependent on the police officers, and thus particularly vulnerable. The Court concluded that the manner in which the applicant had been treated during police custody constituted inhuman treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.   Article 5 § 3   The Court concluded that fifteen days in police custody without appearing before a judge, as in the case before it, did not comply with the notion of promptness as established by the above-mentioned case-law. There had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Article 6 § § 1 and 3 (c)   The Court reiterated its case-law that the status of military judges sitting as members of State Security Courts did provide some guarantees of independence and impartiality; however, certain aspects of these judges’ status made their independence and impartiality questionable: for example, the fact that they were servicemen who still belonged to the army, which in turn took its orders from the executive; the fact that they remained subject to military discipline; and the fact that decisions pertaining to their appointment were to a great extent taken by the administrative authorities and the army. Seeing no reason to depart from the conclusion that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, which it had reached in those judgments, the Court held that here had also been an infringement of that provision in the case before it.   With regard to the applicant’s other complaints under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine them.   ***   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 Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) 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 the case to the Grand Chamber. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. [Note1]   For transitional-period cases. [Note2]   Seventeen judges for the Grand Chamber, seven for a Chamber; substitute judges are not included. [Note3]   Titles to be added in appropriate place. Line returns – and not paragraph returns – should be used (Shift+Enter). [Note4]   Reported speech is, in principle, to be used.