INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Conclusion: not necessary to examination (unanimously). Article 2 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 4 – The Cypriot authorities had closely monitored the applicants' movements between the north and south and within the south and the applicants were not allowed to move freely in the south. The restrictions on their movement fell under this provision and constituted an interference. <strong>No</strong> lawful basis had been advanced by the Government and it was not claimed that the measures were necessary to achieve one of the legitimate aims in paragraphs 3 and 4. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). Article 3 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 4 – The applicants had not claimed that they were expelled to another State and the Republic of Cyprus, sole legitimate government of Cyprus, was itself bound to respect international standards in the field of human and minority rights. In the circumstances, it was unnecessary to determine whether this provision applied and, if so, whether it had been complied with. Conclusion: not necessary to examine (unanimously). Article 34 (former Article 25) – As far as the ninth applicant's son was concerned, he had not lodged an application with the Commission when he made a statement to the Cypriot authorities. As for another of the applicants, no evidence had been adduced to support his allegation that he had made his statements under pressure from the Cypriot police or that any of the applicants had been threatened in relation to his application. It had not been sufficiently established that they were subjected to improper pressure to withdraw their allegations. Conclusion: no failure to comply with obligations (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded each of the applicants 20,000 Cypriot pounds (CYP) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of costs and expenses. INHUMAIN TREATMENT Head injury sustained while applicant in the hands of the police: violation. ALTAY - Turkey (N° 22279/93) *Judgment 22.5.2001 [Section I] Facts: On 2 February 1993 the applicant was forcibly arrested by the police and detained in custody at the police’s anti-terrorist branch until 16 February. The doctor who examined him fourteen days after his arrest noted the presence of three scars resulting
from head injuries. The applicant lodged a complaint alleging ill-treatment by the officers responsible for him during his time in police custody. In June 1993 the provincial governor decided to take no action on the complaint because there was insufficient evidence against the police officers; he noted that the officers had used force to arrest the applicant and that the latter had banged his head against a door while attempting to escape during questioning. That decision was taken following proceedings to which the applicant had no access, and was not served on him. In May 1994 the Istanbul National Security Court found the applicant guilty of seeking to overthrow the constitutional order and sentenced him to the death penalty, commuted to life imprisonment. That decision was upheld by a judgment of the Court of Cassation. Law: Preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) – the administrative authorities had decided to take no action on the applicant’s complaint to the public prosecutor’s office and their decision had not been served on either the applicant or his lawyer. Article 3 – The Government were required to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of the applicant’s injuries. However, they merely referred to the outcome of domestic proceedings, in which the injuries were said to have resulted from the use of force during the applicant’s arrest and from the incident that had occurred while he was trying to escape during questioning. Those explanations did not appear convincing. Having regard to the authorities’ duty to account for individuals under their supervision and for all evidence adduced, in the instant case the respondent State bore responsibility for the head injuries which the applicant had sustained while under police supervision. Yet those injuries to a vital organ had been observed only on the applicant’s fourteenth day in custody, even though the applicant had been in a particularly vulnerable position in that he had been dependent on police officers and had had no contact with a doctor for fourteen days and a lawyer for fifteen days. The treatment to which he had been subjected had therefore been inhuman. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). Article 5(3) – A period of fifteen days in police custody without appearing before a judge was incompatible with the notion of promptness. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). Article 6(1) – One of the three members of the Istanbul National Security Court had been a military judge. Although the provisions governing the composition of national security courts had since been amended, the Court was solely concerned with the particular facts of the case. As in the Incal and Çiraklar cases, the applicant was a civilian; appearing before a court among whose members was a military judge (a regular officer in the armed forces), on charges of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and undermine national unity, he could legitimately have feared that the court might allow itself to be unduly influenced by considerations which had nothing to do with the nature of the case.
Page 1 and 2: INFORMATION <stron
Page 3 and 4: Total number of applications commun
Page 5 and 6: (See Article 3, below). LIFE Disapp
Page 7 and 8: The Court found it unnecessary to d
Page 9: and the ninth applicant was not the
Page 13 and 14: (See Article 2, above). INHUMAN TRE
Page 15 and 16: applicant’s lawyer again appealed
Page 17 and 18: CYPRUS - Turkey (Nº 25781/94) Judg
Page 19 and 20: Facts: The applicant's son and daug
Page 21 and 22: LAWFUL DETENTION Continued detentio
Page 23 and 24: supposed to be lodged. The Supreme
Page 25 and 26: ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS No<
Page 27 and 28: Article 41 - The Court ordered reim
Page 29 and 30: PRIVATE LIFE Footage from municipal
Page 31 and 32: Denial of access to homes of Greek
Page 33 and 34: Judgment 3.5.2001 [Section IV] The
Page 35 and 36: EFFECTIVE REMEDY Effective remedy i
Page 37 and 38: The applicant is a former USSR nati
Page 39 and 40: (See Article 3, above). HINDER EXER
Page 41 and 42: GIAMPETRO - Italy (Nº 37170/97) CI
Page 43: [Section III] In May 1993, the Mini

INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?