Uyan v. Turkey (No. 2) (15750/02)
| Date | 20081021 |
|---|---|
| Article | 3 |
| Decision | violation |
Violation of Article 3 (treatment)
Uyan v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 15750/02)
The applicant, Sait Oral Uyan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965. At the relevant time he was imprisoned in Bursa, serving a life sentence for membership of an extreme-left terrorist organisation.
As Mr Uyan had a severe cervical discopathy, causing him severe pain in his neck and right arm, he asked to be transferred to Bayrampaşa remand prison in Istanbul so that he could receive the necessary treatment. However, the prison administration decided to transfer him to Kartal prison, also in Istanbul. On 5 June 2000, while he was being transferred in a secure prison van, in the charge of six gendarmes, the applicant realised that the vehicle was not heading for Bayrampaşa and threatened to go on hunger strike if he was not immediately taken back to Bursa. His protests made no difference. On arrival, the gendarmes controlling entry to Kartal prison tried to carry out the formalities concerning the applicant’s admission, which would have meant strip-searching him and taking his fingerprints. It appears that the applicant resisted, in the first place by refusing to get out of the van. On 6 June 2000 the applicant was examined by the Kartal prison doctor, who noted that he had a laceration over his left cheekbone. On 13 June the applicant was taken back to Bursa prison, where he underwent a medical examination the following day. The results showed, in particular, a greenish bruise on the left eyebrow, an injury to the left cheekbone and a grazed right wrist. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint, alleging that he had been subjected to ill-treatment both while being transferred in the prison van and on arrival at Kartal prison. The proceedings against the gendarmes on guard duty at the prison entrance ended with a decision by the Pendik Administrative Committee, which ruled that as there was no tangible evidence to corroborate the applicant’s complaints the gendarmes accused had no case to answer. The proceedings against the gendarmes travelling in the prison van led to a trial which ended with their acquittal.
Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment when being transferred to Kartal prison.
The Court considered that the brutality inflicted on the applicant, despite his known poor health, could not correspond to a proportionate use of force made absolutely necessary to calm him and prevent him from being violent to himself or others. It therefore constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3. The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the other complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. It awarded Mr Uyan EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)