Karatepe and Ulaş v. Turkey (29766/03)

Date	20080617
Article	3
Decision	violation

CHAMBER JUDGMENT KARATEPE AND ULAŞ v. TURKEY

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Karatepe and Ulaş v. Turkey (application no. 29766/03).

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicants’ ill-treatment by the police.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

1. Principal facts

The applicants, Umar Karatepe and Sevil Ulaş, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975 and 1978 respectively and live in Istanbul.

The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about being ill-treated when arrested on their way to a meeting organised by a political party.

On 1 September 2001 the applicants went to the Milli Egemenlik Park in Bakırköy (Istanbul) to attend the so-called “peace festivities” organised by the Bakırköy branch of the Republican People's Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi). When they were about to enter the park, the applicants were stopped and searched by the police. They were arrested for acting suspiciously.

Mr Karatepe and Ms Ulaş alleged that they were beaten up, insulted and threatened with death during their arrest. Two police officers allegedly applied pressure to their necks from behind and made them lie down. The applicants were then dragged along the ground, kicked and slapped and put in a police car. Once in the car, the police officers continued to punch and slap them, hit them with wooden sticks, insult and threaten them. One of the police officers sat on Sevil Ulaş’ head and then threw her against the roof of the car. When the applicants asked where they were being taken, one of the officers said: “We are taking you to a stream where your corpses will be found”.

A report drafted by two police officers stated that the applicants had resisted police officers and self-inflicted scratches and bruises on their bodies during the incident. The applicants refused to sign that report.

The applicants were examined by doctors the same day, as well as the day after. Medical reports issued by the Bakırköy State Hospital and Bakırköy Forensic Institute stated that both applicants had widespread bruises and scratches on their bodies. One report also concluded that they were both unfit to work for three days.

On 3 September 2001 the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor, alleging that the police officers had used excessive force during their arrest.

Two investigators appointed by the Bakırköy District Governor found, in particular, that the applicants had shouted political slogans, such as “human dignity will defy torture”, that they hated the police because they had been arrested and detained on a number of occasions in the past, and that the medical reports did not indicate the presence of any bruises which could have been caused by ill-treatment. The Bahçelievler District Governor therefore concluded that the applicants' allegations were not corroborated by evidence and refused authorisation for the prosecution of the accused police officers.

In October 2002, referring to the District Governor’s decision, the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor ultimately issued a non-prosecution decision in respect of the accused police officers. The applicants’ appeal against that decision was dismissed.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 August 2003.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish),
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian),
Ineta Ziemele (Latvian),
Luis López Guerra (Spanish),
Işıl Karakaş (Turkish),
Ann Power (Irish), judges,

and also Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment2

Complaint

Relying on Article 3, the applicants complained about being subjected to ill-treatment during their arrest.

Article 3

The Court noted that the presence of widespread bruises and scratches on the bodies of the applicants, as indicated in the medical reports, had been consistent with the applicants' allegations of having been subjected to physical violence. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the burden rested on the Turkish Government to demonstrate with convincing arguments that the use of force against the applicants had not been excessive.

The Court noted that the Turkish Government had done no more than to claim that the applicants had sustained injuries as a result of having resisted arrest by the police and, in other words, that they had inflicted injuries on themselves. The Court further considered that the District Governor had based its decision to refuse authorisation for the prosecution of the accused police officers on explanations which had been irrelevant and unconvincing.

Moreover, the Turkish Government had not suggested that the festivities in question had been violent or had required the police to react without prior preparation to unexpected developments.

Consequently, the Court found that the Government had failed to provide convincing or credible arguments to explain or justify the degree of force used against the applicants, whose injuries were corroborated by medical reports. The Court therefore concluded that Turkey had been responsible for the applicant’s injuries, in violation of Article 3.