Kızıl v. Turkey (29098/03)
| Date | 20080717 |
|---|---|
| Article | 3 |
| Decision | no viol. |
No violation of Article 3 (treatment)
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)
Kızıl v. Turkey (no. 29098/03)
The applicant, Yunus Kızıl, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Batman (Turkey).
On 9 September 2002 he was arrested at a police check-point while riding a moped with no number-plate, without a driving licence and without a registration certificate. He was informed that he would not be permitted to recover his moped until he had attended to these matters. A few hours later the applicant attempted to take it back without seeking police permission and an altercation took place. The applicant was arrested again. Soon after, the applicant underwent a medical examination, which revealed that he had bruising on his shoulder, right arm and right ear, that he had bruises on the back of his left shoulder, his right wrist, his left forearm and his right ankle, and that he would be unfit for work for three days. A medical examination of one of the police officers also revealed a number of bruises. The applicant complained of ill-treatment and abuse of authority on the part of the police. When the provincial governor refused to authorise the opening of a criminal investigation, the public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings. The police regional disciplinary board also found that there was no cause to impose a disciplinary penalty on the arresting officers. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Kızıl alleged that he had been beaten by the police and complained that there had been no thorough investigation of his case.
In the absence of evidence to corroborate the applicant’s allegation that he had been subjected to ill-treatment, the Court considered that the facts had not been sufficiently well established to enable it to conclude that there had been a substantive violation of Article 3.
However, in view of the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the investigation conducted in the present case could not be regarded as effective and capable of establishing the conditions in which the altercation between the applicant and the police had taken place. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.
It awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)