EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

613

25.9.2007

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT
MUHAMMET ŞAHİN v. TURKEY

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment[1] in the case of Muhammet Şahin v. Turkey (application no. 7928/02).

The Court held unanimously that there had been:

• two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of Mr Şahin having been ill-treated during his arrest and the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Şahin 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

1.  Principal facts

The applicant, Muhammet Şahin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Gasiosmanpaşa (Turkey).

On 2 August 1996 Mr Şahin was arrested on suspicion of being a member of the illegal organisation, the DHKP-C (Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi; the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front). A police report, drawn up on the same day and signed by the applicant, stated that four police officers of the Anti-Terrorism Branch had been informed that Mr Şahin would be meeting another member of the DHKP-C at an address in Kadıköy, an Istanbul district. They waited for him there and when he arrived, they identified themselves as police officers. The applicant tried to run away and the officers had to use force to arrest him.

The applicant alleged that, during his arrest, he was kicked and punched by plain clothes police officers. He was then handcuffed, put in a taxi and taken to the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate where he claimed that he was subjected to further ill-treatment. In particular, he was stripped naked, blindfolded, beaten on the soles of his feet (falaka) and subjected to Palestinian hanging. He was also given electric shocks on his sexual organs and toes and was hosed down with water. His testicles were squeezed and a firearm inserted into his anus.

On 12 August 1996 Mr Şahin was examined by a doctor who noted injuries which had already healed on the side of his left wrist and left shoulder, grazing on his right wrist and two cuts under the right knee.

On 15 August 1996 the applicant declared before the public prosecutor at Istanbul State Security Court that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in custody and that his statements had been taken under duress.

As a result, an investigation was started into those allegations. Statements were taken from four police officers who were on duty at the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch at the relevant time and who had recorded the applicant’s statement. They were subsequently charged with inflicting torture.

Between January 1999 and February 2000, Istanbul Assize Court held seven hearings and heard three of the police officers. The applicant made a statement before Sakarya Assize Court, which was then sent to Istanbul Assize Court. He maintained that he was tortured in police custody; the police officers denied those allegations.

On 16 February 2000 Istanbul Assize Court acquitted the police officers. It was considered that there was insufficient evidence as Mr Şahin could not identify the police officers concerned and his injuries could have occurred during his arrest.

The applicant’s appeal against that judgment was dismissed in October 2001.

2.  Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 October 2001.

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

Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President,
András Baka (Hungarian),
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese),
Riza Türmen (Turkish),
Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian),
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian),
Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges,

and also Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar.

3.  Summary of the judgment[2]

Complaints

Relying, in particular, on Article 3, Mr Şahin complained that he was subjected to
ill-treatment both when arrested and during his ensuing detention in police custody and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective and prompt investigation into his allegations.

Decision of the Court

Article 3

Concerning the ill-treatment

Arrest

The Court noted with concern that the applicant had not been medically examined when arrested. An examination to clarify the extent and causes of his injuries would have been the appropriate step for the authorities to have taken as it had been admitted in the report of 2 August 1996 that the police had resorted to force. Istanbul Assize Court’s judgment of 16 February 2000 also stated that the injuries on the applicant’s body could have occurred during his arrest. Furthermore, it could not be said that the police officers had been called upon to react to an unexpected situation because they had been given inside information as to where the applicant would be and had therefore had an opportunity to secure the area.

Mr Şahin’s injuries appeared to be consistent with his allegation that he had been beaten during his arrest and were corroborated by the medical report of 12 August 1996. The Government had not disputed that report’s findings or put forward a different version of events. The Court concluded that the applicant’s injuries had been the result of treatment for which Turkey bore responsibility. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3.

Police custody

The Court found that the report of 12 August 1996 did not sufficiently prove that Mr Şahin had been subjected to the severe ill-treatment he had described. There was nothing in the case file to cast doubt on the findings of that report or add weight to the applicant’s allegations. Notably there was no indication that the applicant had requested, or had been refused permission, to see another doctor at the end of his time in police custody.

The Court concluded that the evidence before it did not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and therefore rejected that part of the application.

Concerning the investigation

In the Court’s view, it was remarkable that, although Istanbul Assize Court had concluded that the injuries on the applicant’s body could have occurred during his arrest, at no stage of the domestic proceedings had statements been taken from the officers involved. No further explanations had been requested either from the doctor who had written the medical report of 12 August 1996.

Criminal proceedings had only been brought against the police officers who had been involved in taking the applicant’s statement at the Security Directorate Building. Those police officers could not be confronted or indeed identified by Mr Şahin because he had not been heard at the court where the hearings had taken place.

The Court concluded that there had been a further violation of Article 3 because an effective investigation into Mr Şahin’s allegations had not been carried out.

***

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Press contacts

Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)
Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)
 

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

[1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17‑member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.

[2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.