Yücel v. Turkey (No. 1) (6686/03)

Date	20080408
Article	3, 5(3)
Decision	violation

CHAMBER JUDGMENTS YÜCEL v. TURKEY (N° 1) YÜCEL v. TURKEY (N° 2)

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments1 in the cases of Yücel v. Turkey (No. 1) (application no. 6686/03) and Yücel v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 31152/04).

In Yücel v. Turkey (No. 1), 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 on account of the ill-treatment to which the applicant had been subjected while in detention in Kartal Prison (Turkey).

In Yücel v. Turkey (No. 2), the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security) on account of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant an overall amount of 11,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)

1. Principal facts

The two cases concern the same applicant, Erdinç Yücel, a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul.

On 21 January 2001 Mr Yücel was taken into police custody following an operation against the illegal organisation the TİKB (Türkiye İhtilalcı Komünistler Birliği). He was remanded in custody in Kartal Prison on 27 January 2001 and went on hunger strike.

The applicant was examined in various medical centres on 21, 25, 27 and 28 January and on 9 and 16 February 2001.

The medical reports drawn up on 21, 25 and 27 January 2001, before the applicant’s detention in prison, noted bruising to the right ankle and heel, the right arm, the breast bone and the left shoulder blade.

The examination performed on 28 January 2001 observed marks on the applicant’s armpits.

The medical report drawn up on 9 February 2001 stated that the applicant had been on hunger strike in Kartal Prison for 16 days and that on arrival in the prison he had been struck, his underarm hair had been burned and he had been the subject of attempted rape with a truncheon.

According to the report of 16 February 2001 the applicant, who had been on hunger strike for 23 days, was complaining of nausea and dizziness and had several wounds and injuries under the shoulders and around the knees.

On 12 March 2001 the Minister of Justice ordered an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. In March 2002 the public prosecutor’s office in Pendik (Turkey), basing its decision in particular on the statements made by the gendarmes and the applicant, issued an order finding that there was no case to answer on the ground that the evidence was insufficient and unpersuasive. The order was upheld by the Kadiköy Assize Court on 27 June 2002.

Meanwhile, on 5 June 2001, the applicant’s parents had lodged a complaint alleging ill-treatment on the part of the police officers in charge during their son’s custody and the gendarmes on duty at Kartal Prison on 27 January 2001. On 5 August 2004 the Pendik public prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings for lack of evidence concerning the ill-treatment to which the applicant had supposedly been subjected.

Mr Yücel was released on 7 June 2006. However, the criminal proceedings brought against him for membership of an illegal organisation are still pending.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court

The application in Yücel v. Turkey (No. 1) was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 December 2002.

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

Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish),
Rıza Türmen (Turkish),
Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian),
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian),
Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian),
Egbert Myjer (Dutch), judges,

and also Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar.

The application in Yücel v. Turkey (No. 2) was lodged on 23 August 2004 and declared partly admissible on 20 March 2007.

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

Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President,
Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese),
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese),
Rıza Türmen (Turkish),
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian),
Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian),
Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges,

and also Françoise Ellens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment2

Complaints

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleged that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in detention in Kartal Prison. Under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the excessive length of his detention.

Article 3

The Court noted that the medical reports drawn up following the applicant’s transfer to Kartal Prison stated that he had traces of injuries different to those observed in the previous reports. It considered, in particular, that the injuries and marks referred to in the reports of 28 January and 16 February 2001 corroborated the applicant’s allegations that he had received burns to his armpits.

The Court noted the lack of a plausible explanation from the Government, firstly with regard to the discrepancy between the two sets of medical reports issued by the authorities and secondly with regard to the injuries and marks found on the applicant’s body. Hence, the signs observed could not have been the result of injuries sustained prior to the applicant’s arrival in Kartal Prison.

Furthermore, reiterating the authorities’ responsibility to account for individuals placed under their supervision, the Court noted that the criminal investigations brought by the prosecuting authorities had not provided any explanation as to the origin of the injuries.

Accordingly, the Court held that the injuries and marks to the applicant’s body, which were corroborated by physical evidence that had not been refuted, amounted to a violation of Article 3.

Article 5 § 3

The Court considered that the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention – five years and four months – was excessive; it therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.