Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey (5264/03)
| Date | 20081021 |
|---|---|
| Article | 3 |
| Decision | violation |
(Concerning three of the applicants) Violation of Article 3 (treatment)
(Concerning all four applicants) Violation of Article 3 (investigation)
Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey (no. 5264/03)
The applicants are four Turkish nationals: Süleyman Gülbahar who lives in Antakya (Turkey) and was born in 1973; Ömer Berber who lives in Adana (Turkey) and was born in 1975; and, Nuri Akalın and İdris Yiğit who were in Kandıra Prison at the time of making their applications and were born in 1977 and 1975, respectively.
On 19 December 2000 a security operation was carried out at a number of prisons in Turkey; many detainees were killed and hundreds were injured. Subsequently it was decided to transfer detainees to other prisons. The case concerned the applicants’ complaints that they were ill-treated during their transfer to Kandıra Prison and that the authorities failed to adequately investigate their allegations. They relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation).
Mr Gülbahar alleged that on arrival at Kandıra he was punched, stripped naked by soldiers and subjected to an internal body search. Mr Akalın, Mr Berber and Mr Yiğit all alleged that they were beaten in the transport van and then, upon arrival at Kandira, were stripped, punched and kicked. Mr Akalın also claimed that he was beaten on the soles of his feet and raped with a stick. All the applicants were examined by doctors on the same or following day of their transfer: all the medical reports except for the one concerning Mr Gülbahar observed that the applicants had sustained injuries.
Following complaints lodged by the applicants, the prosecution authorities decided in the course of 2001 not to investigate their allegations of ill-treatment and not to prosecute any members of the security forces due to lack of evidence.
As concerned Mr Gülbahar the Court observed that the medical report lacked detail. The Court therefore found that that report could not be relied on as evidence and, in the absence of any other proof in support of his allegations, concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3.
However, as concerned the remaining three applicants, the Court considered that the injuries detailed in their medical reports had been caused while they were in the custody of agents of the State and that the Government had given no plausible explanation for those injuries. Furthermore, the mental and physical health of those applicants, already in a vulnerable state at the time of their transfer due to the security operation, had to have been exacerbated by their ill-treatment. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the ill-treatment of those three applicants.
It appeared that no investigation at all had been carried out at national level into any of the applicants’ allegations. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3 in that respect with regard to all four applicants.
In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR 4,000 to Süleyman Gülbahar and EUR 10,000, each, to Nuri Akalın, Ömer Berber and İdris Yiğit. For costs and expenses, the Court further awarded EUR 4,000, jointly, to all four applicants. (The judgment is available only in English.)