An additional part or version of this document is available.

CM/Inf/DH(2006)24rev2E  / 10 October 2007 

Ministers’ Deputies
CM Documents

CM/Inf/DH(2006)24 revised 30 November 20061
——————————————

982 DH Meeting, 5-6 December 2006

Action of Security Forces in Turkey:

Progress achieved and outstanding issues

General measures to ensure compliance with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 129 cases against Turkey
(Follow-up to Interim Resolutions DH(99)434, ResDH(2002)98 and progress achieved and outstanding issues since the adoption of ResDH(2005)43 in June 2005)

Memorandum by the Directorate General of Human Rights

——————————————
INTRODUCTION

Between 1996 and 2006 the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “ECtHR”) and the Committee of Ministers delivered some 129 judgments and decisions finding that Turkey had violated Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “ECHR”) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, notably in respect of disappearances, unlawful killings, unacknowledged detentions, torture and ill-treatment and destruction of property committed by members of the Turkish security forces, as well as in respect of the inadequacy of the official investigations conducted by the authorities. All these cases also highlighted the general problem of the lack of effective domestic remedies which would allow adequate redress for such abuses (violations of Article 13).

The problems raised in many of these cases are related to the events that took place against the background of the fight against terrorism in the 1990s. It has been repeatedly stated, in this connection, that “despite the necessity of fighting against terrorism in the south-east of the country and the difficulties faced by the State in this fight, the means used must respect Turkey’s obligations under the Convention, in particular as specified by the Court’s judgments and by the Committee of Minister’s decisions” (IntRes DH(99)434).

It is recalled that the question of individual measures is closely linked to that of the general measures in the present group of cases. The state’s continuing obligation to secure effective investigations to remedy the shortcomings identified by the ECtHR is in addition separately considered, notably in the context of the Batı group of cases.

MAIN EXECUTION ISSUES

The Committee of Ministers noted from the outset that all these violations resulted from a number of structural problems:

    - general attitude and practices of the security forces, their education and training system, the legal framework of their activities,
    - shortcomings in establishing at the domestic level criminal liability for abuses, and
    - shortcomings in ensuring adequate reparation to victims.

MEASURES TAKEN SO FAR AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The Committee of Ministers has followed closely the execution of the judgments in these cases. It has welcomed the fact that since 1996 Turkey has adopted a large number of general measures with a view to complying with these judgments, including comprehensive changes in the Constitution, legislation, regulations and practice.

While welcoming these measures and, indeed Turkey’s determination to fulfil the ECHR requirements, the Committee has formulated a number of specific requests in three interim resolutions.

The first requests formulated in Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98 were the following:

    - improvement of the legal framework concerning police custody;
    - establishment of a system of effective accountability of members of security forces that committed abuses;
    - the training of judges and prosecutors;
    - instituting the possibility to obtain a better reparation for the victims of human rights violations.

Following the reforms adopted, in particular after 2002, the Committee anew evaluated Turkey’s compliance with the judgments of the Court in a third Interim Resolution (see, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43) where it:

“Welcomed the adoption of a number of important reforms as well as the ongoing efforts to ensure full compliance with the Convention in these cases;

Expressed satisfaction with the results obtained so far, while encouraging the authorities:

    - to consolidate their efforts to improve the procedural safeguards surrounding police custody through the effective implementation of the new Regulations based on the new Code of Criminal Procedure, in the light of the requirements of the Convention and bearing in mind the recommendations of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT);

    - to consolidate their efforts to reorganise the basic, in-service and management training of the police and gendarmerie by making use of the results obtained in the Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative, in particular as regards the mainstreaming of human rights into initial and in-service training;

    - to take the necessary measures to ensure that the new status of the Convention and the case-law of the Court flowing from the change of Article 90 of the Constitution is translated into the daily practice of the security forces, in particular in the instructions given to them, and that prosecutors and judges are also encouraged to give effect to this new provision;

    - to ensure the prompt and efficient implementation of the new “Law on Compensation of the Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from the Measures Taken against Terrorism”, to reconsider its limited time-frame so that all claims can be processed in an impartial manner, and to ensure that individuals do not have to bear a disproportionate burden as a result of lawful actions of the security forces;

    - to take the necessary measures to remove any ambiguity regarding the fact that administrative authorisation is no longer required to prosecute any serious crimes allegedly committed by members of security forces;

    - to pursue the training provided for judges and prosecutors in the Academy of Justice, in particular by mainstreaming the training on the Convention and the case-law of the Court into the initial and in-service training of judges and prosecutors within the framework of the Academy;

Urged the Turkish authorities regularly to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the practical impact of the measures taken, including the provision of statistics regarding number of investigations, acquittals and convictions into alleged abuses.”

PROGRESS ACHIEVED SINCE THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM RESOLUTION ResDH(2005)43 in JUNE 2005

A. Improvement of Procedural Safeguards in Police Custody

In Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 the Committee of Ministers
Encourages the Turkish authorities to consolidate their efforts to improve the procedural safeguards surrounding police custody through the effective implementation of the new Regulations based on the new Code of Criminal Procedure, in the light of the requirements of the Convention and bearing in mind the recommendations of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT);

i. Measures taken prior to the adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43

Procedural safeguards in police custody have been reinforced by the enactment of legislation on the following issues prior to the adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43:

    - Right of access to a lawyer from the beginning of police custody;
    - Possibility to receive free legal assistance of detained persons;
    - Possibility for apprehended persons to receive information about their rights at the time they are taken in police custody;
    - Right of the suspects’ representative to have access to the investigation file;
    - Prohibition, in principle, of members of security forces to be present during the medical examination of detainees;
    - Prohibition of the use of statements obtained under torture or ill-treatment as evidence.

ii. Issues addressed since the adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43:
Medical examinations:

A new Regulation on Apprehension, Police custody and Interrogation (hereinafter “Regulation”) came into force on 01/06/2005 in accordance with Article 99 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “CCP”) (see, § 7 of Appendix 1 of the Interim Resolution). Article 9 of the Regulation provides the following rules relating to medical examinations:

    - All apprehended persons shall be subject to medical examination at the time of their apprehension.
    - When a detainee is transferred to another detention area or a decision is taken to prolong the detention period or when a detainee is released, a medical examination shall be carried out before he or she is brought before the judicial authorities.
    - Any detainee whose health deteriorates or whose health situation appears to be suspicious while in custody shall immediately be examined by a doctor and be treated if necessary.
    - The police officer who interrogates a detainee or carries out the investigation against him or her should not be the same police officer who brings the detainee to the medical examination unless there is a lack of personnel in the detention premises.

    - When requesting a medical examination of a detainee, the members of security forces should indicate in writing to the medical team whether this examination is requested on entry of the detainee in custody or on his or her leaving police custody.
    - Three copies shall be made of medical reports to be prepared on the entry of a detainee. One copy will remain in the medical file, one copy will be given to the detainee and one copy will be given to the police officer to be filed in the investigation file. Three copies shall be made of medical reports to be prepared following a decision given to prolong the custody period or the transfer of a detainee or his or her leaving police custody. One of these copies will remain in the medical file and two copies will be sent to the relevant public prosecutor in a sealed envelope who will keep one of these copies in the investigation file and submit the other to the detainee or to his or her representative. Medical personnel should take the necessary precautions to make sure that the preparation and submission of medical reports are in accordance with the principle of confidentiality.
    - If a doctor finds that torture (Article 94 of the Criminal Code), aggravated torture (Article 95 of the Criminal Code) or torment (Article 96 of the Criminal Code) have been inflicted on the detainee, he or she should immediately inform the public prosecutor of these findings. The public prosecutor shall take the necessary steps to make sure that a further medical examination be carried out in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation on Physical and Genetic Examinations and Identification in Criminal Procedures.

Control of custody records and detention premises by public prosecutors:

With the coming into force of the CCP, public prosecutors are now authorised to control the detention premises, in particular cells and interrogation rooms. Public prosecutors are also responsible for controlling the state of detainees, the reasons of their detention and their length of detention and all other relevant information in the custody records. Public prosecutors shall note their findings in the custody register (Article 92).

Members of security forces are also under an obligation to ensure that the detention premises comply with the standards as enshrined by the Regulation (Article 26 of the Regulation).

In a Circular (No.3) issued by the Minister of Justice on 01/01/2006 the authorities are reminded of their obligations under the ECHR and of the case-law of ECtHR, as well as domestic law provisions, concerning the right to liberty and security and procedural safeguards in police custody. It is emphasised in the Circular that the necessary measures should be taken rapidly in case the detention facilities are found to be below the standards described in the Regulation. Public prosecutors are requested to fill out a form (an example of which is attached to the Circular) concerning the control of detention facilities and are asked to return the forms to the Ministry of Justice four times in a year so that they can be presented to the Human Rights Coordination Council attached to the Prime Minister’s Office.

Right of access to a lawyer

In a Circular (No. 24) issued by the Minister of Justice on 01/01/2006, the attention of the authorities is drawn to the effective use of right to access to a lawyer at the investigation stage in accordance with the requirements of the ECHR and of domestic law.

Report of the Committee of Prevention of Torture (CPT) of 06/09/2006 on the visit to Turkey from 7 to 14 December 2005

The CPT noted in its report that “New Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes, as well as a revised version of the Regulation on Apprehension, Detention and Statement Taking, entered into force on 1 June 2005.  These texts have consolidated improvements which had been made in recent years on matters related to the CPT’s mandate. It is more than ever the case that detention by law enforcement agencies (police and gendarmerie) is currently governed by a legislative and regulatory framework capable of combating effectively torture and other forms of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials” (see, §12).

The CPT’s findings confirm that progress continues to be made as regards the implementation in practice of the safeguards against ill-treatment, including the length of detention in police custody and proper keeping of custody records.

However, the CPT noted that problems still remain in certain areas, notably as regards the implementation of the legislation concerning the right to access to a lawyer and confidentiality and quality of medical examinations of detainees (see, in particular, §§ 21 – 29) (for further information, including the recommendations of the CPT, see http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/tur/2006-30-inf-eng.htm).

The Secretariat’s assessment:

The legislation adopted in order to reinforce the procedural safeguards in police custody with the aim of eradicating torture and ill-treatment appears capable of remedying the shortcomings identified in these judgments.

It should be underlined, however, that the strict implementation of the above mentioned legislation and earlier regulations is necessary. The controls to be carried out by public prosecutors in order to ensure that the detention facilities and custody records comply with the standards would appear to be of particular interest.

Information would be appreciated concerning the results of these visits and in particular on the conclusions drawn by the Human Rights Coordination Council. Nationwide data and statistical information demonstrating that the detainees benefit, in practice, from the procedural safeguards, in accordance with the recommendations of the CPT, would be useful.

Information would also be appreciated concerning the changes recently introduced in the Anti-terrorism Law, in particular as to whether or not these new provisions introduced are restricting the procedural safeguards in police custody in the investigation of the crimes falling under the anti-terrorism law.

B. Improving the professional training of the members of the Security Forces

In Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 the Committee of Ministers

Encourages the Turkish authorities to consolidate their efforts to reorganise the basic, in-service and management training of the police and gendarmerie by making use of the results obtained in the Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative, in particular as regards the mainstreaming of human rights into initial and in-service training;

The Turkish authorities have underlined the importance of raising human rights awareness through providing human rights courses in police colleges and academies and organising training activities on human rights in general and on the crime of torture and ill-treatment in particular. In this context, the Turkish authorities referred to the various training projects organised in the past, in particular through the Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative.

The Turkish authorities have recently submitted extensive information regarding the human rights education of members of security forces. Interested delegations can review this information at the Secretariat. The information is summarised below:

The Turkish authorities informed that the ongoing efforts to enhance human rights training of security forces, including the anti-terrorism branch, have been intensified following the coming into force of the new Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure in June 2005. These training activities comprised courses on human rights and on new procedures that came into force after the adoption of the new legislation, as well as seminars on practical aspects of the new legislation and codes of conduct of the security forces.

As far as the Gendarmerie is concerned, the Turkish authorities have in addition informed that human rights training is part of the curriculum, as a separate subject and as an integrated aspect of other subjects, in all relevant education institutes. Furthermore, a large number of seminars and conferences have been organised on new Turkish legislation, as well as on human rights, between 1999 and 2006.

The Secretariat’s assessment:

The recent information submitted by the Turkish authorities is welcomed. It can be recalled in this regard that the in-service and management training of the police and gendarmerie is of vital importance to ensure that future similar violations are prevented. Further updated information regarding the latest developments on this issue would therefore be appreciated. In addition, copies of the curricula of the different education institutes for members of the gendarmerie would be appreciated.

C. Giving direct effect to the ECHR in daily practice

In Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 the Committee of Ministers

Encourages the Turkish authorities to take the necessary measures to ensure that the new status of the Convention and the case-law of the Court flowing from the change of Article 90 of the Constitution is translated into the daily practice of the security forces, in particular in the instructions given to them, and that prosecutors and judges are also encouraged to give effect to this new provision;

Information concerning the amendments made to the instructions given to the security forces to ensure that their daily practice comply with the requirements of the ECHR is awaited.
Concerning the direct effect given by prosecutors and judges to the ECHR, the Minister of Justice issued a series of Circulars on 01/06/2005 drawing the attention of the former to the newly enacted legislation, as well as the shortcomings identified by the ECtHR in its judgments against Turkey. Recalling Turkey’s obligations flowing from the ECHR, the Minister referred, in particular, to the following:

    - All criminal investigations should be carried out speedily and effectively in compliance with the requirements of the ECHR. Respect for human rights presupposes that the interrogation of a suspect in custody should not be used to incriminate the suspect but to collect evidence for and against him or her. Public prosecutors should calculate with diligence the prescription periods and should do all that is necessary in order to finalise the investigations pending without any outcome (Circular No. 2).
    - The shortcomings identified by the ECtHR regarding the criminal investigations should be remedied in order to avoid future violations, in particular those relating to ineffective investigations in allegations of torture and ill-treatment, discrepancies in autopsy reports, the absence of photos that should be taken during autopsies and decisions of non-prosecution issued by public prosecutors without the necessary investigation carried out into the facts (Circular No. 4).
    - Investigations into allegations of torture or ill-treatment should be carried out by the chief public prosecutors or a public prosecutor appointed by him or her (not by the police or members of security forces) in accordance with the requirements of international conventions on human rights, the case-law of the ECtHR, the Constitution and the relevant provisions of domestic law (Circular No. 8).
    - Investigations into unknown perpetrator killings should be carried out rapidly and effectively taking into account the requirements of the ECHR, in particular the pursuit of such crimes should be carried out in coordination with the security forces. All necessary evidence should be collected from the scene of the crime and should be kept with care. The rules on ballistic examinations, autopsy reports and identification of the body should strictly be followed. Furthermore, such investigations should be carried out directly by public prosecutors who should examine the investigation files with regular intervals and who should do their utmost to make sure that the perpetrators are found rapidly and in any case within the prescription period (Circular No. 22).

It has to be recalled that according to Article 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, decisions of public prosecutors not prosecute can be challenged by the interested persons before the competent assize courts. The European Court rejected in a decision of 31/12/2002 the applicant’s complaints in the case of Epözdemir (no: 57039/00) on the grounds that the applicant has not availed himself to this remedy under Turkish law.

The Secretariat’s assessment:

The Circulars of the Minister of Justice are encouraging with a view to ensuring that effective and adequate investigations are carried out into allegations of abuse by members of security forces. Further information on the measures taken to ensure the independence of the investigations into alleged abuses (e.g. special investigation force, calling in arrangement) would be helpful.

Information is awaited as regards the amendments needed for the instructions to be issued for the security forces in order to ensure that their daily practice comply with the requirements of the ECHR.

D. Prompt and efficient implementation of the new “Law on Compensation of the Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from the Measures taken against Terrorism” (hereinafter “the Law on Compensation”)

In Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 the Committee of Ministers
Encourages the Turkish authorities to ensure the prompt and efficient implementation of the new “Law on Compensation of the Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from the Measures Taken against Terrorism”, to reconsider its limited time-frame so that all claims can be processed in an impartial manner, and to ensure that individuals do not have to bear a disproportionate burden as a result of lawful actions of the security forces;

The scope of the Law on Compensation

The Turkish Parliament adopted on 27/07/2004 the “Law on Compensation of the Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from the Measures Taken against Terrorism”. (Several provisions of this law were amended by Law no. 5442 of 2812/2005; in particular its time-frame was extended for one year). The law provides a possibility to obtain directly from the administration compensation for pecuniary damages caused to natural or legal persons as a result of terrorist activities and operations carried out in combating terrorism during the period July 1987 to December 2005 with a possibility of judicial review of decisions taken in this respect. The law does not cover the damages settled by the State by other means, damages compensated by the judgments of the European Court, damages resulting from social and economical reasons and damages of those who left their residences voluntarily (reasons not related to concerns of security), damages caused by intentional acts and damages of those who were convicted under Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Anti-terrorism Law and of those who were convicted for aiding and abetting terrorist organisations. On 20 October 2004 the “Regulation on the Compensation of the Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from the Measures taken against Terrorism” entered into force, which lays down the rules governing the functioning of “compensation assessment commissions” and their working methods. The Regulation further lays down the rules relating to methods of determining the amounts of compensation to be awarded.

The decision of the ECHtR in the case of İçyer v. Turkey (no. 18888/02)

In this case the applicant complained of the refusal of the authorities to allow him to return to his home and land in the south east of Turkey. The ECtHR observed that, when it took its decision, the applicant was not prevented from returning to his village. In this situation the ECtHR concentrated on the availability of adequate economic compensation. It noted that the compensation commissions established with the coming into force of the Law on Compensation seemed to be operational in seventy-six provinces in Turkey and that there were already 170,000 persons seeking a remedy before these commissions. It also appeared from a substantial number of sample decisions furnished by the Government that persons who had sustained damage in cases of denial of access to property, damage to their property or death or injury can successfully claim compensation by using the remedy offered by the Compensation Law. In the ECtHR’s opinion, these decisions demonstrate that the remedy in question is available not only in theory but also in practice. The ECtHR therefore concluded that the measures taken by Turkey to remedy the situation of the internally displaced persons, including the Compensation Law, today provided an effective remedy.

The Secretariat’s assessment:

The adoption of the Law on Compensation and its effective implementation by the Turkish authorities, as highlighted by the ECtHR in its above-mentioned decision, are encouraging developments.
It appears from the findings of the ECtHR in the case İçyer that the Turkish authorities have taken the necessary measures to ensure that the Law on Compensation is efficiently implemented and that it now provides an effective domestic remedy. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the Turkish authorities have indicated in the Doğan case that the right of return is presently efficiently secured (thus allowing the closure of the Doğan case).The Committee of Ministers might therefore consider the closure of the examination of the Compensation Law.

The special questions relating to the Compensation Law, highlighted in the Interim Resolution (2005)43, now being settled, it has to be noted that the Compensation Law has not, however, been designed as a general remedy ensuring redress for all the situations at issue in the present group of cases. Nor does it provide redress for situations occurring after December 2005. Accordingly, further information is now required as to the developments of the other remedies available so as to allow redress for other persons who have suffered or may suffer damages because of actions of security forces in violation of the ECHR highlighted already in Interim Resolution DH(99)434.

E. Establishment of enhanced accountability of security forces

In Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 the Committee of Ministers

Encourages the Turkish authorities to take the necessary measures to remove any ambiguity regarding the fact that administrative authorisation is no longer required to prosecute any serious crimes allegedly committed by members of security forces;

The Turkish authorities have pointed out a number of indictments lodged against members of security forces between December 2004 and August 2005 in the south-east of Turkey concerning, in particular, the following alleged crimes: negligence in carrying out an effective and prompt investigation: causing bodily harm: use of force beyond what was necessary and trafficking in arms. In particular, the Turkish authorities drew the Committee’s attention to a prosecution order from the Ankara Public Prosecutor to the Bakırköy (Istanbul) Public Prosecutor requesting the latter to remedy the shortcomings in an investigation carried out into a killing by unknown perpetrators and to do the necessary in accordance with requirements of the ECHR under Article 2 and with reference to a number of judgments of the ECtHR.

The Turkish authorities have informed that on 26/04/2003 a new body was introduced with the aim of receiving and examining complaints about alleged human rights violations committed by gendarmes (“JİHİDEM”) which is reachable 24 hours per day by internet, telephone or in person. Until today 770 complaints have been received by JİHİDEM, 185 of which involved human rights. 18 complaints were referred to judicial organs, in 34 complaints the investigation was already underway and in 3 cases disciplinary sanctions were imposed. 130 complaints have been judged as ill-founded.

Likewise, the Regional and Local Human Rights Councils established in 2000 have substantially been reorganised in 2003 to be able to effectively and rapidly deal with complaints of human rights violations. The total number of the Regional and Local Councils has now reached to 931 in 81 regions and 850 provinces. A number of 847 applications have been lodged in 2004 and 1377 in 2005 with the Councils. In 2004 % 9, 64 of the applications lodged with the Councils concerned complaints of ill-treatment. In this regard, it has to be noted that these councils have also as one of their duties to monitor the situation in law enforcement establishments.
The Secretariat’s assessment:
These examples demonstrate that the practice of the judicial authorities concerning the effective prosecution of the crimes allegedly committed by members of security forces is developing.

Furthermore, the aforementioned Circulars issued by the Minister of Justice are particularly encouraging developments with a view to ensuring that the members of security forces are effectively prosecuted for abuses. The establishment of the JİHİDEM and the effective functioning of the Regional and Local Human Rights Councils are also welcome developments. It appears that these bodies provide non-judicial recourse for those who claim that they had been subject to torture or ill-treatment. Information is nevertheless awaited on the effective functioning of the monitoring to be carried out by Regional and Local Human Rights Councils (see § 28 of the CPT report for the concerns raised on the effective functioning of this monitoring mechanism).

As regards the precondition for administrative authorisation required for the investigation of accusations of torture and ill-treatment, it is recalled that such an authorisation is not required following the amendments introduced in January 2003 to Law No. 4778 on the Prosecution of Civil Servants. In this respect, clarifications are however still necessary concerning the legal situation in Turkish law regarding the prosecution of members of security forces for crimes other than torture and ill-treatment.

It is recalled that the specific problems noted as a result of the short prescription periods for the crimes of torture and ill-treatment, as well as the possibilities of reopening of domestic proceedings against members of security forces accused of abuses, are being dealt with separately, notably in the context of the Batı group.

F. Training of judges and prosecutors

In Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 the Committee of Ministers

Encourages the Turkish authorities to pursue the training provided for judges and prosecutors in the Academy of Justice, in particular by mainstreaming the training on the Convention and the case-law of the Court into the initial and in-service training of judges and prosecutors within the framework of the Academy;

The Turkish authorities provided information regarding a series of conferences and training activities which were carried out in 2004 and 2005 for judges and prosecutors on the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR in collaboration with the European Commission and various universities and institutes in Turkey.

The Ministry of Justice is also organising regular training activities within the context of “Human Rights Education in Turkey Program 1998-2007” for in-service training of judges and prosecutors, as well as the paralegal staff, who are subject to training on human rights prior to their appointments and promotions.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice is regularly publishing the judgments of the ECtHR in its “Bulletin of Jurisprudence” and distributing 13,000 copies of it to the relevant authorities. The judgments of the EtCHR are also published at the Ministry’s webpage (www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr). The webpage includes articles written by scholars or judges and public prosecutors on general human rights issues and the ECHR.

As regards the training activities carried out within the context of the Academy of Justice, the Turkish authorities have submitted a list of seminars, conferences, study-visits and other training activities organised in 2004, 2005 and in the first three months of 2006 within the context of Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative and with the collaboration with various universities and institutions both in Turkey and abroad. Many of these activities concern seminars given on the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR, with particular focus on the procedural safeguards in police custody.

The Secretariat’s assessment:

The information submitted by the Turkish authorities concerning the training activities is appreciated. Information is, however, awaited regarding the mainstreaming of the training on the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR into the initial and in-service training of judges and prosecutors within the context of the curriculum of the Academy of Justice.

G. Practical impact of the measures taken

In Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 the Committee of Ministers

Urges the Turkish authorities regularly to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the practical impact of the measures taken, including the provision of statistics regarding number of investigations, acquittals and convictions into alleged abuses.

The Turkish authorities submitted statistical information regarding the number of investigations, acquittals and convictions into crimes of torture and ill-treatment for years 2003, 2004 and 2005 (see Appendix I).

This statistical information can be summarised as follows:

Year

Number of investigation files opened

Number of members of security forces indicted

Decision of not to prosecute given

Number of members of security forces convicted

Number of members of security forces acquitted

2003

2612 (against 5588 members of security forces)

2333

1153

862

1375

2004

2413 (against 5173 members of security forces)

1824

1230

462

1631

2005

1721 (against 4277 members of security forces)

1052

1005

459

1870

The Turkish authorities also drew the Committee’s attention to a number of judicial acts between February 2003 and July 2005 (approximately 200 court decisions and public prosecutors’ decisions whether to prosecute or not) in which reference was made to the judgments of the ECtHR. In the opinion of the Turkish authorities, these examples are indicative of the direct effect given to the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR by the Turkish judiciary.

In the meantime, the CPT noted during its December 2005 visit to Turkey that “the curve of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials remains on the decline. However, there are clearly no grounds for complacency, all the more so as reports continue to appear of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials in different parts of [Turkey]”. It was also observed that there would appear to be a continuing problem of disproportionate use of force in the context of public demonstrations. Although the CPT delegation found the situation with regard to the fight against torture and ill-treatment during its visit in the provinces of Adana, Istanbul and Van encouraging, it still encountered several allegations of recent physical ill-treatment, in particular in Istanbul (see §§ 16-20 of the above-mentioned report).

The Secretariat’s assessment

It can be observed from the statistical information submitted by the Turkish authorities that there is a slight decrease in the number complaints lodged against members of security forces for torture and ill-treatment in 2005 compared with previous years. Furthermore, the number of convictions has decreased by one third in two years (15% of members of security forces against whom a complaint has been lodged were convicted in 2003 while this number is 10% for 2005). In the meantime, the number of acquittals has almost doubled (24% of members of security forces against whom a complaint has been lodged were acquitted in 2003 while the percentage is 43% for 2005). These figures are not conclusive since it cannot be assumed that the investigation files opened into complaints lodged in a given year were finalised in the same year. However, they are still indicative of a positive development in the decrease of cases of torture and ill-treatment. This conclusion would appear to be in line with the drop in the number of cases lodged with the European Court in these last three years, as well as the findings of the CPT during its visit in December 2005.

The Turkish authorities are also expected to submit information on the number of investigations, convictions and acquittals into allegations of killings as a result of disproportionate use of force by members of security forces.

The examples of judicial acts giving direct effect to the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR are appreciated.

H. The recent violations established under Article 38 of the Convention

It is noted that a number of recent judgments regarding the action of the security forces have also established violations of Turkey’s obligation to cooperate with the Court. In view of the specific nature of these issues, the Secretariat proposes to examine them outside of the framework of this memorandum.

Appendix I

Investigation files opened pursuant to Articles 243 § 1 (torture, ill treatment and degrading treatment with the aim of obtaining evidence) 243 § 2
death as a result of torture) and 245 (causing bodily harm as a result of a disproportionate use of force by members of security forces)
of the old Turkish Criminal Code (hereinafter "TCC")

           

Figures in 2003

             
 

Number of investigation files transferred from the previous year

Investigation files opened in 2003

Total number of investigation files pending

 

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Crimes Charged

Police officer

Gendarme

Other Public Servant

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

TCC 243/1

287

683

608

71

4

493

789

1637

1342

212

83

1151

1076

2320

1950

283

87

1644

TCC 243/2

13

16

13

3

0

14

25

38

27

10

1

28

38

54

40

13

1

42

TCC 245

527

1739

1018

669

52

799

1798

3913

2917

825

171

2523

2325

5652

3935

1494

223

3322

Total

827

2438

1639

743

56

1306

2612

5588

4286

1047

255

3702

3439

8026

5925

1790

311

5008

 

Investigations finalised with respect to Articles 243 and 245 of the TCC

 

Result of the Investigation

Rank of the Accused

Number of victims

Number of files to be transferred to the following year

 

Number of decisions not to prosecute

Number of indictments

Other decisions

Total

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Crimes Charged

Number of files

Number of accused

Number of files

Number of accused

Number of files

Number of accused

Number of files

Number of accused

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

TCC 243/1

413

949

224

568

193

367

830

1884

1566

245

73

1146

246

436

384

38

14

498

TCC 243/2

13

19

9

11

2

4

24

34

23

10

1

28

14

20

17

3

0

14

TCC 245

727

1606

732

1754

287

867

1746

4227

3107

948

173

2452

579

1425

829

546

50

870

Total

1153

2574

965

2333

482

1238

2600

6145

4695

1203

247

3626

839

1881

1230

587

64

1382

 

Investigation files opened pursuant to Articles 243 § 1 (torture, ill treatment and degrading treatment with the aim of obtaining evidence)
243 § 2 (death as a result of torture) and 245 (causing bodily harm as a result of a disproportionate use of force by members of security forces) of the old Turkish Criminal Code (hereinafter "TCC")

           

Figures in 2004

             
 

Number of investigation files transferred from the previous year

Investigation files opened in 2004

Total number of investigation files pending

 

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Crimes Charged

Police officer

Gendarme

Other Public Servant

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

TCC 243/1

246

436

384

38

14

498

598

1378

1193

161

24

888

844

1814

1577

199

38

1386

TCC 243/2

14

20

17

3

0

14

28

39

24

5

10

29

42

59

41

8

10

43

TCC 245

579

1425

829

546

50

870

1787

3756

3091

454

211

2782

2366

5181

3920

1000

261

3652

Total

839

1881

1230

587

64

1382

2413

5173

4308

620

245

3899

3252

7054

5538

1207

309

5081

 

Investigation finalised with respect to Articles 243 and 245 of the TCC

 

Result of the Investigation

Rank of the Accused

Number of victims

Number of files to be transferred to the following year

 

Number of decisions not to prosecute

Number of indictments

Other decisions

Total

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Crimes Charged

Number of files

Number of accused

Number of files

Number of accused

Number of files

Number of accused

Number of files

Number of accused

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

TCC 243/1

303

625

156

549

131

205

590

1379

1174

170

35

900

254

435

403

29

3

486

TCC 243/2

28

35

7

12

1

1

36

48

38

4

6

36

6

11

3

4

4

7

TCC 245

899

1978

626

1263

324

444

1849

3685

3025

455

205

2876

517

1496

895

545

56

776

Total

1230

2638

769

1824

456

650

2475

5112

4237

629

246

3842

777

1942

1301

578

63

1269

Investigation files opened pursuant to Articles 94 (torture), 95 § § 1, 2 and (aggravated torture), 95 § 4 (death as a result of torture) and 256
(disproportionate use of force) of the new Turkish Criminal Code "TCC"

           

Figures in 2005

             
 

Number of investigation files transferred from the previous year

Investigation files opened in 2005

Total number of investigation files pending

 

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Crimes Charged

Police officer

Gendarme

Other Public Servant

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

NTCC 94,95/1-2-3

254

435

403

29

3

486

547

1222

1093

101

28

800

801

1657

1496

130

31

1286

NTCC 95/4

6

11

3

4

4

7

3

5

5

0

0

3

9

16

8

4

4

10

NTCC 256

517

1496

895

545

56

776

1171

3050

2655

208

177

2405

1688

4546

3550

753

233

3181

Total

777

1942

1301

576

63

1296

1721

4277

3753

309

205

3208

2498

6219

5054

887

268

4477

 

Investigations finalised with respect to Articles 94,95 and 256 of the NTCC

                                     
 

Result of the Investigation

Rank of the Accused

Number of victims

Number of files to be transferred to the following year

 

Number of decisions not to prosecute

Number of indictments

Other decisions

Total

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

Number of files

Number of accused

Rank of the accused

Number of victims

Crimes Charged

Number of files

Number of accused

Number of files

Number of accused

Number of files

Number of accused

Number of files

Number of accused

Police officer

Gendarme

Other public servant

NTCC 94,95/1-2-3

292

705

107

233

99

157

498

1095

999

78

18

843

303

562

497

52

13

443

NTCC 95/4

4

6

2

7

0

0

6

13

7

4

2

6

3

3

1

0

2

4

NTCC 256

709

2423

314

812

175

301

1198

3536

2818

552

166

2559

490

1010

732

201

67

622

Total

1005

3134

423

1052

274

458

1702

4644

3824

634

186

3408

796

1575

1230

253

82

1069

Number of criminal cases pending in relation to Articles 243 and 245 of the TCC for 2003

           

Figures in 2003

                   
 

Number of case files transferred from the previous year

Number of case files opened in 2003

Number of case files re-examined after having been quashed

Total

 

Number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

Crimes charged

police

gendarme

other public servant

police

gendarme

other public servant

police

gendarme

other public servant

police

gendarme

other public servant

TCC 243/1

157

605

501

90

14

334

201

1358

445

907

4

290

4

10

8

2

0

6

362

1971

954

999

18

630

TCC 243/1

6

30

16

12

0

6

4

16

12

4

0

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

46

30

16

0

13

TCC 245

713

1827

1278

438

111

1354

864

2127

1733

320

74

1324

23

41

34

7

0

34

1600

3995

3045

765

185

2712

Total

876

2462

1797

540

125

1694

1069

3501

2400

1231

78

1621

27

51

42

9

0

40

1922

6012

4029

1766

203

3355

         

Number of case files finalised in 2003

                 
 

Number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

Type of Decisions given

Number of convictions postponed

Number of victims

Case files transferred to the following year

 

Convictions

Number of accused convicted

Number of accused acquitted

Number of accused in other decision

Total

Number of case files

Number of accused

rank of accused

 

Crimes charged

police

gendarme

other public servant

Imprisonment

Fine

Imprisonment and fine

Other Sanctions

police officer

gendarme

other public servants

number of victims

TCC 243/1

168

943

457

477

9

27

12

2

440

481

403

59

943

27

292

194

1028

497

522

9

338

TCC 243/1

4

18

7

11

0

9

0

0

0

9

5

4

18

0

7

6

28

23

5

0

6

TCC 245

705

1509

1148

293

68

89

122

20

141

372

967

170

1509

188

1147

895

2486

1897

472

117

1565

Total

877

2478

1612

781

77

125

134

22

581

862

1375

233

2470

213

1446

1095

3542

2417

999

126

1909

Number of criminal cases pending in relation to Articles 243 and 245 of the TCC for 2004

                 
           

Figures in 2004

               

Total number before criminal courts

                                         
 

Number of case files transferred from the previous year

Number of case files opened in 2003

Number of case files re-examined after having been quashed

Total

 

Number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

Crimes charged

police

gendarme

other public servant

police

gendarme

other public servant

police

gendarme

other public servant

police

gendarme

other public servant

TCC 243/1

194

1028

497

522

9

338

182

588

484

115

9

261

11

426

17

409

0

33

387

2042

978

1046

18

632

TCC 243/1

6

28

23

5

0

6

1

3

3

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

31

26

5

0

8

TCC 245

895

2486

1897

472

117

1565

917

2672

2316

235

121

1505

21

41

33

8

0

21

1833

5199

4246

715

238

3091

Total

1095

3542

2417

999

126

1909

1100

3282

2783

350

130

1768

32

467

50

507

0

54

2227

7272

5250

1766

256

3731

         

Number of case files finalised in 2004

                 
                                           
 

Number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

Type of Decisions given

Number of convictions postponed

Number of victims

Case files transferred to the following year

 

Convictions

Number of accused convicted

Number of accused acquitted

Number of accused in other decision

Total

Number of case files

Number of accused

rank of accused

 

Crimes charged

police

gendarme

other public servant

Imprisonment

Fine

Imprisonment and fine

Other Sanctions

police officer

gendarme

other public servants

number of victims

TCC 243/1

176

944

447

489

8

21

7

0

40

68

403

473

944

21

279

211

1098

531

557

10

353

TCC 243/1

6

28

23

5

0

6

2

0

2

10

18

0

28

4

6

1

3

3

0

0

2

TCC 245

749

1928

1538

297

93

72

76

16

220

384

1210

326

1922

122

1107

1084

3271

2708

418

145

1984

Total

931

2900

2008

791

101

99

85

16

262

462

1631

801

2894

147

1392

1296

4372

3242

975

155

2339

Number of criminal cases pending in relation to Articles 94, 95 and 288 of the NTCC for 2005

           

Figures in 2005

             

Total number before criminal courts

                                         
 

Number of case files transferred from the previous year

Number of case files opened in 2003

Number of case files re-examined after having been quashed

Total

 

Number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

number of case files

number of accused

rank of accused

number of victims

Crimes charged

police

gendarme

other public servant

police

gendarme

other public servant

police

gendarme

other public servant

police

gendarme

other public servant

TCK 94,95/1-3

211

1098

531

557

10

353

157

507

462

27

18

263

40

87

60

20

7

82

408

1692

1053

604

35

698

TCK 94/4

1

3

3

0

0

2

3

7

5

2

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

10

8

2

0

8

TCK 258

1084

3271

2706

418

145

1984

487

1369

1105

173

91

854

58

148

123

15

10

88

1629

4788

3936

606

246

2926

Total

1296

4372

3242

975

155

2339

647

1883

1572

202

109

1123

98

235

183

35

17

170

2041

6490

4997

1212

281

3632

         

Number of case files finalised in 2005

                 
                                           
 

Number of case files

Number of accused

rank of accused

Type of Decisions given

Number of convictions postponed

Number of victims

Case files transferred to the following year

 

Convictions

Number of accused convicted

Number of accused acquitted

Number of accused in other decision

Total

Number of case files

Number of accused

rank of accused

 

Crimes charged

police

gendarme

other public servant

Imprisonment

Fine

Imprisonment and fine

Other Sanctions

police officer

gendarme

other public servants

number of victims

TCK 94, 95/1-3

183

976

481

493

2

28

20

0

55

103

362

511

976

29

306

225

718

572

111

33

392

TCK 94/4

1

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

0

0

2

0

1

3

8

6

2

0

7

TCK 256

838

2402

2015

292

95

34

86

11

243

354

1508

541

2403

104

1557

791

2388

1921

314

151

1369

Total

1022

3380

2498

785

97

62

106

11

300

459

1870

1052

3381

133

1864

1019

3110

2499

427

184

1768

Appendix II

Judgments concerning violations of the Convention by the Turkish security forces pending before the Committee of Ministers for control of execution (general measures)
(cases concerning the events which took place outside of the state of emergency region are highlighted in italics)
 
1. Violation of the right to life (Article 2):
 
A. and others (30015/96), judgment of 27/07/2004, violations of Articles 2 (death in custody and lack of effective investigation), 3 and 13

Abdurraham Orak (31889/96), judgment of 14/02/02, violations Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 3 (torture inflicted on the applicant’s son) and 13

Acar and Others (36088/97), judgment of 24/05/2005, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation) and 13

A.K. and V.K. (38418/97), judgment of 30/11/2004, violations of Articles 2 and 13 (failure to carry out an effective investigation into the alleged death after torture)

Akdeniz (25165/94), judgment of 31/05/2005, violations of Articles 2 (presumed dead following unacknowledged detention and lack of effective investigation), 3 and 5

Akdeniz and others (23954/94), judgment of 31/05/01, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant), 5, 13 and former 25

Akkoç (22947/93), judgment of 10/10/00, violations of Articles 2 (failure to protect the right to life and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the torture inflicted on the applicant), 13, former 25

Akkum and Others (21894/93), judgment of 24/03/2005, violations of Articles 2 (State responsible for the death), 3, 13, 38 and Article 1 of Protocol 1

Aktaş (24351/95), judgment of 24/04/03, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the treatment inflicted on the applicant’s brother and lack of effective investigation), 13 and 38

Ateş Yasin (30949/96), judgment of 31/05/2005, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to State), 5 § 1, 13 and 38

Avşar (25657/94), judgment of 10/07/01, violations of 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation) and 13

Aydın Süheyla (25660/94), judgment of 24/05/2005, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to State), 3, 13 and 38

Bişkin (45403/99), judgment of 10/01/2006, violations of Articles 2 and 13 (lack of an effective investigation into unknown perpetrator killing)

Buldan (28298/95), judgment of 20/04/2004, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation) and 13

Çakıcı (23657/94), judgment of 08/07/99, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the applicant’s brother), 5, 13 and former 25

Çelikbilek (27693/95), judgment of 31/05/2005, violations of Articles 2 (ineffective investigation), 13 and 38

Çiçek (25704/94), judgment of 27/02/01, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the applicant), 5 and 13

Demiray (27308/95), judgment of 21/11/00, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation) and former 25

Dündar (26972/95), judgment of 20/09/2005, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation) and 13

E.O (28497/95), judgment of 15/07/2004, violation of Article 2 (lack of effective investigation)

Ergi (23818/94), judgment of 28/07/98, violations of Articles 2 (failure to protect civilians in the planning and conduct of a military operation and lack of effective investigation) and 13

Eren Aydın and others (57778/00), judgment of 21/02/2006, violations of Articles 2 and 13 (lack of effective investigation)

Erkek (28637/95), judgment of 13/07/04, violation of Article 2 (lack of effective investigation)

Ertak (20764/92), judgment of 09/05/00, violations of Article 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation)

Gezici (34594/97), judgment of 17/03/2005, violations of Articles 2 and 13 (failure to protect the right to life and lack of an effective investigation)

Gül (22676/93), judgement of 14/12/00, violations of 2 (use of force not absolutely necessary and lack of effective investigation) and 13

Güleç (21593/93), judgment of 27/07/98, violation of Article 2 (disproportionate use of force and lack of effective investigation)

Haran Nesibe (28299/95), judgment of 06/10/2005, violation of Article 2 (lack of effective investigation)

İkincisoy A. and H. (26144/95), judgment of 27/07/2004, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 5§§ 3 and 4, 13 and 34

İpek (25760/94), judgment of 17/02/04, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the applicant), 5, Art 1 P1 (destruction of home and property), 13 and former 38

İrfan Bilgin (25659/94), judgment of 17/07/01, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 5 and 13

Kaçar Fatma (35838/97), judgment of 15/07/2005, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation) and 13

Kaplan and Others (36749/97), judgment of 13/09/2005, violations of Articles 2 (failure to protect the right to life and lack of effective investigation) and 13

Kanlıbaş (32444/96), judgment of 08/12/2005, violations of Articles 2 and 3 (lack of effective investigation)

Kaya (22729/93), judgment of 19/02/98, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation) and 13

Kaya Belkısa and others (33420/96+), judgment of 22/11/2005, violations of Articles 2, 5 and 13 (lack of effective investigation)

Kılıç (22492/93), judgment of 28/03/00, violations of Articles 2 (failure to protect the right to life and lack of effective investigation), 13 and former 28

Kişmir (27306/95), judgment of 31/05/2005, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to State), 13 and 38

Koku (27305/96), judgment of 31/05/2005, violations of Articles 2 (failure to protect the right to life), 3, 13 and 38

Mahmut Kaya (22535/93), judgment of 28/03/00, violations of Articles 2 (failure to protect the right to life and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the applicant) and 13

Menteşe and others (36217/97), judgment of 18/01/2005, violations of Articles 2 and 13 (lack of an effective investigation into the death of the applicants’ relative)

Mordeniz (49160/99), judgment of 10/01/2006, violations of Articles 2 and 13 (lack of an effective investigation)

Nuray Şen (no. 2) (25354/94), judgment of 30/03/04, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation) and 13

Oğur (21594/93), judgment of 20/05/99, violation of Article 2 (use of force was not necessary and proportionate and lack of effective investigation)

Orhan (25656/94), judgment of 18/06/02, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the applicant), 5, 8, Art 1 P1 (destruction of home and property), 13 and former 28

Özalp and others (32457/96), judgment of 08/04/04, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation) and 13

Özgen and others (38607/97), judgment of 20/09/2005, violations of Articles 2 and 13 (lack of an effective investigation)

Özkan Ahmet and Others (21689/93), judgment of 06/04/2004, violations of Articles 2 (failure to protect the right to life and lack of effective investigation), 3 (ill-treatment and lack of effective investigation), 5 §§ 1 and 3 and 8 (destruction of property)

Perk and others (50739/99), judgment of 28/03/2006, violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective investigation into the death of the applicants’ relatives as a result of disproportionate use of force)

Salman (21986/93), judgment 27/06/00, violations of 2 (death in custody and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the torture inflicted on the applicant’s husband), 13 and former 25

Seyan (33384/96), judgment of 01/11/2004, violations of Articles 2 and 13 (lack of an effective investigation into the alleged killing of the applicant’s father by security forces)

Şarlı (24490/94), judgment of 22/05/2001, violations of Articles 13 (lack of an effective investigation) and former 25

Şeker (52390/99), judgment of 21/02/2006, violations of Articles 2 and 13 (lack of an effective investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son)

Şemsi Önen (22876/93), judgment of 14/05/02, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation) and 13

Şirin Yılmaz (35875/97), judgment of 29/07/2004, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation) and 13

Tahsin Acar (26307/95), judgment of 08/04/04, violations of Articles 2 (the applicant’s brother disappeared, presumed death – lack of effective investigation) and 38

Tanış and Others (65899/01), judgment of 02/08/2005, violations of Articles 2 (failure to protect the right to life), 3, 5, 13 and 38

Tanlı (26129/95), judgment of 10/04/01, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation) and 13

Tanrıkulu (23763/94), judgment of 08/07/99, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation), 13 and former 25

Taş (24396/94), judgment of 14/11/00, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the applicant), 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5, 13 and former 28 (failure to cooperate with the Commission)

Tekdağ (27699/95), judgment of 15/01/04, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation), 13 and 38

Tepe (27244/95), judgment of 09/05/03, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation), 13 and 38

Timurtaş (23531/94), judgment of 13/06/00, violations of Articles 2 (death attributable to the State and lack of effective investigation), 3 (in respect of the applicant), 5, 13 and former 28 (failure to cooperate with the Commission)

Toğcu (27601/95), judgment of 31/05/2005, violations of Articles 2 (ineffective investigation), 13 and 38

Türkoglu (34506/97), judgment of 17/03/2005, violation of Article 2 (lack of an effective investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s husband)

Ülkü Ekinci (27602/95), judgment of 16/07/02, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation) and 13

Yaşa (22495/93), judgment of 02/09/98, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation) and 13

Zengin Gülli (46928/99), judgment of 28/10/2004, violations of Articles 2 (lack of effective investigation) and 13

 
2. Violation of the right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3)
 
Akdoğdu (46747/99), judgment of 18/10/2005, violation of Article 13

Akkurt (47938/99), judgment of 04/05/206, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Aksoy (21987/93), judgment of 18/12/96, violations of Articles 3, 5§3 and 13

Algür (32574/96), judgment of 22/10/02, violations of Articles 3 and 6 § 1

Altay (22279/93), judgement of 22/05/01, violations of Articles 3, 5 § 3 and 6

Aydın (23178/94), judgment of 27/09/97, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Aydın and Yunus (32572/96), judgment of 22/06/04, violation of Article 3

Ayşe Tepe (29422/95), judgment of 22/07/03, violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 3

Bakbak (39812/98), judgment of 01/06/04, violation of Article 3

Baltaş (50988/99), judgment of 20/09/2005, violation of Article 13

Berktay (22493/93), judgment of 01/03/01, violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 1

Bilen (34482/97), judgment of 20/09/2005, violations of Articles 3 and 5 §§ 3 and 4

Büyükdağ (28340/95), judgment of 21/12/01, violations of Articles 3, 6 and 13

Cangöz (28039/98), judgment of 04/10/2005, violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 3

Çalışır (52165/99), judgment of 21/02/2006, violation of Article 3

Çelik and İmret (44093/98), judgment of 26/10/2004, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Çolak (32578/96), judgment of 08/01/04, violation of Article 3

Dalan (38585/97), judgment of 07/06/2005, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Demirel Kekil (48581/99), judgment of 11/04/2006, violation of Article 3

Dikme (20869/92), judgment of 11/07/00, violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 3

Dizman (27309/95), judgment of 20/09/2005, violations of Articles 3, 13 and 38

Doğanay (50125/99), judgment of 21/02/2006, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Elçi and others (23145/93), judgment of 13/11/03, violations of Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 8

Esen (29484/95), judgment of 22/07/03, violation of Article 3

Güler Irfan (49391/99), judgment of 10/01/2006, violations of 3 and 13

İlhan (22277/93), judgment of 27/06/00, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Karayiğit (63181/00), judgment of 20/09/2005, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Kılıç Hasan (35044/97), judgment of 28/06/2005, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Kurt (24276/94), judgment of 25/05/98, violations of Articles 3, 5, 13 and former Article 25

Önder (28520/95), judgment of 08/01/04, violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation)

S.B. and H.T. (54430/00), judgment of 05/07/2005, violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 3

Satık and others (31866/96), judgment of 10/10/00, violation of Article 3

Saygılı (57916/00), judgment of 04/05/2006, violation of Article 3

Tekin (22496/93), judgment of 09/06/98, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Tuncer and Durmuş (30494/96), judgment of 02/11/2004, violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 1

Turan Devrim (879/02), judgment of 02/03/2006, violation of Article 13

Veznedaroğlu (32357/96), judgment of 11/04/00, violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation)

Yaz (29485/95), judgment of 22/07/03, violation of Article 3

Yavuz (67137/01), judgment of 10/01/2006, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Yavuz Nazif (69912/01), judgment of 12/01/2006, violations of Articles 3 and 13

Yüksel Mehmet Emin (40154/98), judgment of 20/07/2004, violations of Articles 3 and 13
 
3. Violations of the right to respect for the applicants’ home (Article 8) and/or of the right property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1):
 
Ağtaş (33240/96), judgment of 02/02/2006, violation of Article 13

Akdıvar and others (21893/93), judgment of 16/09/96 (merits), violations of Articles 8, Art 1 P1 and former 25

Altun (24561/94), judgment of 01/06/04, violations of Articles 8, Art 1 P1, 3 and 13

Artun and Others (33239/96), judgment of 02/02/2006, violation of Article 13

Ayder and others (23656/94), judgment of 08/01/04, violations of Articles 8, Art 1 P1, 3 and 13

Bilgin (23819/94), judgment of 16/11/00, violations of Articles 8, Art 1 P1, 3, 13 and former 25

Dulaş (25801/94), judgment of 30/01/01, violations of Articles 8, Art 1 P1, 3 and 13

İlhan Hasan (22494/93), judgment of 09/11/2004, violations of Articles 3, 8, Art 1 P1 and 13

Keser and others (33238/96+), judgment of 02/02/2006, violation of Article 13

Kurt Nuri (37038/97), judgment of 29/11/2005, violation of Article 13

Menteş and others (23186/94), judgment of 28/11/97, violations of Articles 6, 8 and 13

Öztropak and others (33247/96), judgment of 02/02/2006, violation of Article 13

Saylı (33243/96), judgment of 02/02/2006, violation of Article 13

Selçuk (23184/94), judgment of 24/04/98, violations of Articles 3, 8, Art1 P1 and 13

Yöyler (26973/95), judgment of 24/07/03, violations of Articles 8, Art 1 P1, 3 and 13
 
Yılmaz Kumru and others (36211/97), judgment of 02/02/06, violation of Article 13

4. Violations exclusively of the right to a tribunal or to an effective remedy against abuses (Articles 6 and 13) or lack of procedural safe guards in police custody (Articles 5 and 8)
 
Çetin and others (22677/93), judgment of 26/11/96, violation of Article 6 (no access to a tribunal to claim civil rights)

Sarı and Colak (42596/98+), judgment of 04/04/2006, violations of Articles 5 § and 8

Uçar (52392/99), judgment of 11/04/2006, violations of Articles 5 §§ 3 and 5, 8 and 13
 
Yılmaz and others (23179/94), violation of Article13
 

Note 1 This document has been classified restricted at the date of issue. Unless the Committee of Ministers decides otherwise, it will be declassified according to the rules set up in Resolution Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents.


 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents