[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF MEHMET EREN v. TURKEY
(Application
no. 32347/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14
October 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Mehmet Eren v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş, judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 32347/02) against the Republic
of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Mehmet Eren (“the
applicant”), on 27 July 2002.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr S. Çınar,
a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent.
- On
14 September 2007 the President of the Second Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Diyarbakır.
- On
17 November 1998 at 3.30 p.m. the applicant, a journalist working for
a biweekly newspaper, was taken into custody by police officers from
the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters
along with 108 other persons. At the time of the arrest, the
applicant and the other arrestees were in the Diyarbakır
branch of the People's Democracy Party (HADEP), where demonstrations
and hunger strikes were allegedly being organised, in order to
protest about the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the
PKK (the Workers' Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation.
- At
7.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to the Diyarbakır
State Hospital. The doctor who examined him noted
that there was no sign of recent physical violence on the applicant's
person.
- On
20 November 1998 the applicant made statements to the police.
According to the report signed by two police officers and the
applicant, the applicant stated that he had been in the
Diyarbakır branch of HADEP in order to
participate in the demonstration.
- The
applicant alleges that he was subjected to various forms of
ill treatment while in police custody. In particular, he was
kept in a dark cell with insufficient ventilation,
deprived of food and water and was prevented from going to the
toilet. He was forced to stand,
handcuffed, in the same position for long hours. During the
questioning, he was stripped naked, insulted and threatened with
death and rape. The applicant was beaten on various parts of his
body. In particular, he received repeated blows to his abdomen. His
testicles were squeezed and he was subjected to sexual abuse.
Finally, he was forced to watch a female detainee being sexually
abused.
- On 23 November 1998 the applicant, along with nine
other persons, was taken to a clinic in Diyarbakır and examined
there by a medical expert, who drafted one document in respect of all
ten people, and noted that none of them had sustained any injuries.
- On
25 November 1998 the applicant, along with 110 other persons, was
taken to the same clinic and examined there by another doctor, Mr
A.O. On a document of the police headquarters in which the names of
all 111 persons were put, Mr A.O. noted the same sentence below
every name:
“No sign of physical violence has been observed”.
The
applicant claimed that there had been police officers present in the
examination room and that although he had described the type of
ill-treatment to which he had been subjected in police custody, the
doctor did not note any of his complaints.
- On
25 November 1998 the applicant was brought before the public
prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. He maintained
that he had been in the HADEP building as a journalist and that he
had not participated in the demonstration or the hunger strike. He
stated that he had been made to sign his police statements without
reading them.
- At
9 p.m. on the same day, the applicant was released upon the decision
of the public prosecutor.
- On 26 November 1998 the applicant was examined by a
doctor from the Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights Foundation
of Turkey, Mr R.A., who recorded the following:
“There is a bruise measuring 10 x 0.5 cm on the
right side of the hypogastrium.
He has sensitivity and pain upon palpation behind his knees, pain in
the ankles, sensitivity and pain in the toe muscles in both feet. He
also has sensitivity in his testicles and epididymis, swelling in the
groin (may be the beginning of a hernia), sensitivity and pain in the
epigastrium.
An eruption on the occipital region has been observed.”
- On an unspecified date the Diyarbakır branch of
the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey referred the applicant to the
Izmir branch of the Turkish Medical Association. Between 7 and 11
December 1998 the applicant underwent various medical examinations,
the results of which were noted in a medical report of 4 August 1999.
According to this report, the applicant was suffering from a hernia
in the groin, pain in various parts of his body and from major
depression and an acute stress disorder, two psychiatric conditions
that normally are caused by traumatic experiences such as rape and
torture. The doctors concluded that the applicant's complaints were
consistent with his allegations of ill-treatment. While reaching this
conclusion, the doctors from the Izmir branch of the
Turkish Medical Association also noted the findings of the
report of 26 November 1998 drawn up by Mr R.A.
- On
17 December 1998 the applicant underwent surgery for the hernia in
his groin, which had allegedly occurred as a result of the
ill-treatment he had suffered in police custody.
- On
17 January 1999
the applicant drafted a document for his lawyers in which he
described in detail the alleged ill-treatment that he had suffered
during his police custody between 17 and 25 November 1998. At the end
of the document, he noted that the applicant's representative before
the Court and another advocate would bring proceedings on his behalf
as his legal representatives.
- On
11 May 2000 the applicant's lawyer lodged a complaint with the
Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office that the applicant had
been subjected to ill-treatment during his police custody. He
submitted a copy of the medical report of 4 August 1999 along with
his petition.
- On
9 January 2002 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor invited the
applicant's representative to his office in order to make statements.
- On
10 January 2002 the applicant's representative made statements to the
public prosecutor. He contended that the applicant had requested him
to initiate proceedings on his behalf a few days before 11 May 2000,
the date on which he had lodged a complaint on behalf of the
applicant. The representative further noted that the applicant's
allegations were consistent with the findings of the report of 26
November 1998.
- On
23 January 2002 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor invited the
applicant to his office in order to make statements.
- On
1 February 2002 the applicant made statements to the public
prosecutor. He noted that he had requested his lawyer to lodge a
complaint against the persons who had inflicted ill-treatment on him.
He contended that his lawyer had told him that he had initiated
proceedings. The applicant stated that he had not applied to the
public prosecutor's office himself. He finally requested that the
police officers who had ill-treated him be punished.
- On
the same date the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision
not to prosecute in respect of the applicant's allegations of
ill-treatment. In his decision, the public prosecutor noted that the
applicant had been detained in police custody between 17 and 23
November 1998 and that the relevant medical reports did not reveal
any sign of violence on the applicant's person. The public prosecutor
further noted that the applicant had applied to the Turkish Medical
Association at the end of his custody period and that he should have
lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor's office instead.
- On
26 February 2002 the applicant's lawyer lodged an objection with the
Siverek Assize Court against the Diyarbakır public prosecutor's
decision of 1 February 2002. He requested that persons who had
been in police custody at the same time as the applicant be summoned
to make statements. He further requested that the doctors who
had drawn up the report of 4 August 1999 and Mr A.O., the
doctor who had examined the applicant along with 110 other persons on
25 November 1998, be heard. The lawyer also requested that the
police officers who had been on duty during the applicant's detention
in custody be determined and the photos of the applicant taken during
his detention be included in the file, if there were any.
- On
14 March 2002 a single judge at the Siverek Assize Court dismissed
the applicant's objection. In his decision, the judge noted that the
applicant had been in police custody between 17 and 23 November 1998
and that the medical report of 23 November 1998, the date on which he
was released, did not reveal any sign of violence on the applicant's
person.
He further observed that the applicant had not alleged ill treatment
before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security
Court on 25 November 1998, immediately after his detention in
police custody. The judge finally noted that the applicant had
applied to the Turkish Medical Association on 4 August 1999, and
had lodged his complaint on 11 May 2000. The judge considered that
the applicant's allegations were dubious, since he had lodged his
application a long time after his release from police custody.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- A full description of the domestic law and practice at
the relevant time may be found in Batı and Others v. Turkey
(nos. 33097/06 and 57834/00, §§ 95-99, ECHR 2004-IV
(extracts)).
THE LAW
I. ADMISSIBILITY
- The Court notes that the application is not manifestly
ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant alleged under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been
subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. He further
complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the
domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation
into his allegations.
- The
Court considers that these complaints should be examined from the
standpoint of Article 3 alone, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. The responsibility of the respondent State in the
light of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
1. The parties' submissions
- The
Government maintained that the applicant's allegations of
ill treatment were not substantiated. They contended that the
applicant had not brought his allegations of ill-treatment to the
attention of the national authorities until May 2000, a fact which
cast doubt on the seriousness of his claim. They pointed to the
statements of the applicant's representative made to the Diyarbakır
public prosecutor on 10 January 2002 in this
respect.
- The
Government further maintained that the medical reports of 17, 23
and 25 November 1998 had disclosed no sign of ill treatment on
the applicant's body. They submitted that it was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt that the applicant had been ill treated. The
Government noted in this respect that there was no finding of
ill-treatment in the report of 4 August 1999.
- The
applicant submitted, in reply, that he had maintained before the
public prosecutor, who had questioned him on 25 November 1998, that
he had been ill-treated. However, the prosecutor had ignored his
allegations. In his submissions of 28 March 2007, the applicant's
representative also stated that the applicant had authorised him and
another advocate, by the document dated 17 January 1999, to bring
proceedings on his behalf. He noted that the applicant had first
contacted the other advocate. Subsequently, as the latter had failed
to lodge an application with the Court within six months of the end
of the applicant's detention in police custody, in May 2000 the
applicant had contacted him.
- The
applicant further submitted that the medical examination of
25 November 1998 could not be relied on in the assessment of the
applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, since there had been police
officers in the doctor's room and no examination had actually been
carried out. Had it taken place, the doctor would have seen that
there were signs of old injuries and traces of operations on his
body. The applicant contended that the medical reports issued by the
Human Rights Foundation and the Izmir branch of the Turkish Medical
Association revealed the signs of ill-treatment to which he had been
subjected.
2. The Court's assessment
- The
Court reiterates that Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental
values of democratic societies, making no provision for exceptions,
and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2
(see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR
1999-V).
- It further reiterates that where an individual is
taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured by the
time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible
explanation of how those injuries were caused and to produce evidence
casting doubt on the veracity of the victim's allegations,
particularly if those allegations are supported by medical reports.
Failing this, a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention
(see, among many others, Selmouni, cited above, § 87;
Çelik and İmret v. Turkey, no. 44093/98, §
39, 26 October 2004).
- In
assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of
proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (see Avşar v.
Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII,
(extracts)). Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of
sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar
unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many others,
Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR
2000 IV; Süleyman Erkan v. Turkey, no.
26803/02, § 31, 31 January 2008)).
- Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the
Court observes at the outset that the applicant was released from
police custody on 25 November 1998 but that his representative
did not lodge a formal criminal complaint of ill-treatment until 11
May 2000, some 18 months later. However, on 25 November 1998
the applicant had informed the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır
State Security Court that he had been made to sign his police
statements without reading them, but no action was taken in respect
of this allegation. The public prosecutor did not even ask the
applicant to detail his statements. Furthermore, the applicant
demonstrated his intention to bring proceedings in respect of his
allegations of ill treatment by the document dated 17 January
1999, prepared for his lawyers, whose authenticity was not challenged
by the respondent Government, and by applying to the Human Rights
Foundation the day after his release from police custody. The Court
therefore considers that it is not its role to speculate on the
reasons for the inactivity of the applicant's representatives in
respect of the formal complaint. In any event, under Article 102 of
the former Criminal Code, in force at the material time, taken
together with Articles 243 and 245 of the same Code, there was a
five-year time-limit for prosecuting offences of ill treatment
committed by civil servants. Indeed, the public prosecutor could not
and did not dismiss the criminal complaint on
the ground that it had been submitted too late. Consequently, the
Court cannot accept the Government's submission that the applicant's
allegations were unsubstantiated as he had failed to lodge a
complaint earlier.
- As
regards the Government's arguments concerning the medical reports
(see paragraph 30 above), the Court notes that there are five medical
reports drafted in respect of the applicant concerning his detention
in police custody between 17 and 25 November 1998. The first medical
report was drafted at the beginning of his detention and indicated no
sign of recent physical violence on the applicant's person. The
second and third medical reports, dated 23 and 25 November 1998, were
made by two doctors at a health clinic in Diyarbakır and they
too indicated that there was no sign of physical violence on the
applicant's body. The fourth medical report was issued one day after
the applicant's release from police custody by a doctor from the
Human Rights Foundation in Diyarbakır and referred to injuries
and pain. The fifth report was drafted on 4 August 1999 and reflected
the findings of a committee of doctors from the Izmir Branch of the
Turkish Medical Association, who had examined the applicant between
7 and 11 December 1998. This report recorded a number of
physical and psychological findings which were deemed to be
consistent with the applicant's allegations of ill treatment
(see paragraphs 8 and 14 above).
-
The Court observes that there exists a major discrepancy between the
report of 25 November 1998, on which the Government based their
submissions to the Court, and the reports of 26 November 1998 and
4 August 1999, which constituted the basis of the
applicant's allegations: While the latter reports indicate findings
of physical and psychological violence, according to the former the
applicant was not subjected to ill treatment. The Court should
therefore determine the weight to be attached to these reports.
- In
this connection, the Court observes, as regards the medical report of
25 November 1998, that the doctor put his findings in a letter sent
to him by the police headquarters, requesting the medical examination
of the applicant and other arrestees. Furthermore, the medical report
in question did not solely concern the applicant. It was drafted in
respect of 111 persons including the applicant, and made the
same observation about all of them. The applicant alleged that there
had been police officers in the room and that he had not actually
been examined by the doctor, who had failed to note his complaints of
ill treatment.
- Although the Court is unable to verify the applicant's
aforementioned allegations, it nevertheless refers to the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture's (CPT) standards on the
medical examination of persons in police custody. The CPT held that
all medical examinations should be conducted out of the hearing, and
preferably out of the sight, of police officers. Further, the results
of every examination as well as relevant statements by the detainee
and the doctor's conclusions should be formally recorded by the
doctor (see “The CPT Standards” – CPT/Inf/E (2002)
1 - Rev. 2006, paragraph 38).
- Even if the applicant's allegations are inaccurate,
that is to say if a medical examination was indeed carried out, no
decisive importance can be attributed to the resultant report, since
the Court has already held that collective medical examinations can
only be described as superficial and cursory (see Akkoç v.
Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 118, ECHR 2000 X;
Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 642,
13 November 2003). The CPT has confirmed that every detained
person should be examined on his or her own (see the report of the
CPT following its visit to Turkey between 5 and 10 October 1997
(CPT/Inf (99) 2, paragraph 36). The same principle was also
enunciated in the Manual on the Effective Investigation and
Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, “the Istanbul Protocol”,
submitted to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (9 August 1999, paragraph 164).
- In
the light of the above, the Court attaches no weight to the findings
of the report dated 25 November 1998.
- As
regards the report of 26 November 1998, the Court observes at the
outset that the applicant was released from police custody at 9 p.m.
on 25 November 1998 and applied to the Human Rights
Foundation where he underwent a medical examination the next day.
The Court further observes that the physical findings in the
report of 26 November 1998 are at least consistent with the
applicant's allegations that he had received repeated blows to
his abdomen and that his testicles had been squeezed. As to the
report of 4 August 1999, the Court observes that it was drafted
following very detailed medical examinations which were conducted
over five days. It included not only physical but psychological
findings, and an interpretation as to the probable relationship of
these findings to possible torture or ill-treatment (see, in this
respect, the “Istanbul Protocol”, cited
above, paragraph 81). The findings of the medical examination
of 26 November 1998 were also taken into consideration by the
doctors who drafted it in reaching their conclusion. The Court
therefore considers that the reports of 26 November 1998 and 4
August 1999 should be regarded as conclusive evidence, and finds that
the injuries noted in the report of 26 November 1998, which were
supported by the conclusions of the report of 4 August 1999,
were the result of treatment which had occurred during the
applicant's detention in the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters
between 17 and 25 November 1998.
- In
this connection, the Court observes that the Government did not
challenge the accuracy of the content of the medical reports of
26 November 1998 and 4 August 1999. Nor did they provide a
plausible explanation for the physical and psychological findings
contained therein.
-
In the light of the above, in particular the absence of a plausible
explanation from the respondent Government as to the cause of the
injuries sustained by the applicant, the Court finds that these
injuries were the result of the applicant's
serious ill treatment while he was in police custody, for which
the State bore responsibility.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under
its substantive limb.
B. The responsibility of the respondent State in the
light of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
1. The parties' submissions
- The
Government submitted that the domestic authorities fulfilled their
obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant's
allegations. However, they maintained that a period of 18 months had
elapsed until the applicant lodged his complaint. The authorities
were thus deprived of the opportunity to verify the applicant's
allegations. The Government further stated that the applicant should
have applied to the domestic authorities instead of the Izmir branch
of the Turkish Medical Association.
- The
applicant replied that both the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and
the Assize Court had failed to take into consideration the medical
report of 4 August 1999. He further submitted that persons
who had been in police custody between 17 and 25 November 1998 should
have been heard by the public prosecutor. The applicant contended
that the doctors who had drawn up the report of 4 August 1999 and the
doctor who had drafted the report of 25 November 1998 should
also have been heard. He finally maintained that the Diyarbakır
public prosecutor had failed to determine the identity of the police
officers who had been on duty at the material time.
2. The Court's assessment
49. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention also
requires the authorities to investigate allegations of ill-treatment
when they are “arguable” and “raise a reasonable
suspicion” (see, in particular, Ay v. Turkey, no.
30951/96, §§ 59-60, 22 March 2005). The minimum standards
of effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law include the
requirements that an investigation be independent, impartial and
subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities act
with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, for example, Çelik
and İmret, cited above, § 55).
- In
addition, the Court recalls that the rights enshrined in the
Convention are practical and effective, and not theoretical and
illusory. Therefore, in such cases, an effective investigation must
be able to lead to the identification and punishment of those
responsible (see, mutatis mutandis, Nevruz Koç v.
Turkey, no. 18207/03, § 53, 12 June 2007).
- The
Court has found above that the respondent State was responsible,
under Article 3 of the Convention, for the injuries sustained by the
applicant. An effective investigation was therefore required.
- Turning
to the present case, the Court observes, at the
outset, that a preliminary investigation was indeed conducted by the
Diyarbakır public prosecutor.
However, the Court is not persuaded that this investigation
was conducted either diligently or effectively.
- The
Court notes that neither the police officers who had been on duty
during the applicant's detention in the Diyarbakır police
headquarters nor the doctors who had drafted the reports of 23, 25
and 26 November 1998 and 4 August 1999 were heard by the Diyarbakır
public prosecutor. The only step taken by him was to obtain
statements from the applicant's representative and the applicant
himself. Moreover, the public prosecutor took their statements some
20 months after the lodging of the criminal complaint and, the same
day, issued his decision not to prosecute.
- The
Court rejects the Government's submission that the applicant had
deprived the prosecuting authorities of the opportunity of obtaining
medical evidence by only lodging his complaint 18 months after his
release from police custody. The applicant submitted, in support of
his criminal complaint, a medical report drawn up by six specialists
from the Izmir branch of the Turkish Medical Association, a public
professional organisation established by Law no. 6023, in accordance
with Article 135 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey.
In the Court's view, a report drawn up by this organisation could and
should have constituted the basis of an investigation. In any event,
the Diyarbakır public prosecutor did not attempt to obtain other
medical opinions.
- In
the light of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant's
allegations of ill-treatment were not the subject of an effective
investigation by the domestic authorities as required by Article 3 of
the Convention.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 under its procedural
limb.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
- Relying
on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant
complained that he had had no opportunity, in the absence of an
effective investigation, to bring compensation proceedings against
the officers who had ill-treated him.
- The
Government contested that argument.
- Having
regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and
its finding of a violation under Article 3 under both its substantive
and procedural limbs, the Court considers that it has examined the
main legal question raised in the present application. It concludes
therefore that there is no need to make a separate ruling under this
head (see, for example, Uzun v. Turkey,
no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Mehmet and Suna Yiğit
v. Turkey, no. 52658/99, § 43, 17 July 2007; K.Ö.
v. Turkey, no. 71795/01, § 50, 11 December 2007).
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The applicant claimed 1,500 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage. This sum related to his loss of earnings and
medical costs and expenses between 26 November and 12 December 1998.
He also claimed EUR 35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant's claims were
unsubstantiated.
- As
regards the alleged pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, the
Court observes that the applicant did not produce any document in
support of his claim, which the Court, accordingly, dismisses.
- However,
in the circumstances of the case as a whole the Court finds that the
applicant must have suffered pain and distress which cannot be
compensated solely by the Court's finding of a violation. Having
regard to the nature of the violation found in the present case and,
ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 7,500
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 2,670 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government contested this claim.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, the applicant has not
substantiated that these costs were has
actually incurred
the costs so claimed. Accordingly, it
makes no award under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs;
- Holds that there is no need to examine
separately the applicant's complaint under Article 6 of the
Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 7,500 (seven thousand
five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect
of non pecuniary damage, to be converted into new Turkish liras
at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise
Tulkens
Registrar President
