Dağdelen and Others v. Turkey (1767/03)

The four applicants, Önder Dağdelen, Sami Özbil, Ergül Çiçekler and Murat Telli, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1978, 1977, 1976 and 1978 respectively.

In connection with an investigation into a bomb plot, the applicants were arrested and held in police custody at the end of April and the beginning of May 1996. Some confessed during that time. Two medical reports were drawn up during and after their period in police custody, and all the applicants were found to have sustained injuries. In 1997 police officers who had taken part in the applicants’ interrogations were charged with extracting confessions using torture. The Assize Court ruled in 2002 that the prosecution of the police officers was time-barred. The first three applicants were eventually convicted in 2003 and sentenced to life imprisonment for an attempt to undermine the constitutional order, whilst the last applicant was granted the benefit of amnesty legislation.

The applicants complained, in particular, of torture by police officers while in police custody, of the outcome of the criminal proceedings brought against the police officers concerned and of the length of those proceedings. Önder Dağdelen and Ergül Çiçekler also complained of the use by the court during their trials of confessions that had been extracted from them using torture while they were in police custody, when they had had no access to a lawyer, and of the length of the criminal proceedings against them. The applicants relied, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 6 § 3 (c) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

The Court considered that the report drawn up at the end of the applicants’ period in police custody, without providing a final conclusion on the matter, nevertheless tended to lend credibility to their allegations that they had been suspended by their arms. The Government had given no explanation as to the cause of the injuries found on the applicants, who had been detained for between seven and 14 days without access to a lawyer. In the light of the evidence submitted to it and the lack of a plausible explanation on the part of the Government, the Court found it established that the injuries described in the medical reports had been caused by treatment for which the Turkish Government bore responsibility, in breach of Article 3.

As to the criminal proceedings against the police officers, the Court observed that they had lasted for more than five years without any decision being taken on the merits. For the Court, it was regrettable that the domestic court had failed to ensure a speedy trial for the State agents charged with ill-treatment and that, as a result of that failure, the prosecution had become time-barred. In view of the significant delay in the conducting of the proceedings before the Assize Court, the Court considered that the Turkish authorities had not acted with due promptness or with reasonable diligence, such that the presumed perpetrators of acts of violence had enjoyed virtual impunity, thus rendering the criminal remedy ineffective, in further breach of Article 3.

The Court observed that the applicants Önder Dağdelen and Ergül Çiçekler were interrogated during their period in police custody, which lasted between ten and 14 days. In that time, without the assistance of counsel, they gave statements by which they incriminated themselves and they took part in numerous investigative measures. The results of those measures during their police custody were used in evidence against them in the reasoning of the judgments convicting them. These two applicants were unsuccessful in their attempt to appeal against the investigative measures in question. The Court did not find it necessary to ascertain whether the conviction was decisively based on those investigative measures. It was sufficient to note that the facts were established by the criminal courts partly on the basis of acts involving recourse to ill-treatment and without allowing access to counsel, and that the Court of Cassation had provided no redress for those shortcomings. The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 in respect of these applicants.

The Court awarded, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 8,000 each to Sami Özbil and Murat Telli, and EUR 11,000 each to Önder Dağdelen and Ergül Çiçekler, and in respect of costs and expenses, EUR 2,000 to Sami Özbil and Murat Telli, jointly, and EUR 3,000 to Önder Dağdelen and Ergül Çiçekler jointly. The Court considered that there was no need to examine separately the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, and declared inadmissible the complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against Önder Dağdelen and Ergül Çiçekler. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Note: The Court of Cassation confirmed the verdict on 1 December 2003.

Date	20081125
Article	3, 6(1)
Decision	violation