Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65
June 2004
Batı and Others v. Turkey - 33097/96 and 57834/00
Judgment 3.6.2004 [Section I]
Article 13
Effective remedy
Length of proceedings concerning ill-treatment, resulting in offences being time-barred: violation
Article 3
Torture
Ill-treatment of young people and a pregnant woman in custody: violation
Facts: In 1996 the applicants were placed in police custody and subsequently in pre-trial detention, and charged, inter alia, with membership of an armed gang. Thirteen of the applicants alleged that they had been subjected to brutality and ill-treatment while in police custody; one of the applicants claimed to have suffered a miscarriage on account of this ill-treatment. In 1996 an initial complaint alleging ill-treatment in police custody resulted in a finding that there was no case to answer on account of insufficient evidence against the police officers accused of the offences. Following a further criminal complaint for ill-treatment, charges were brought from 1997 onwards by the prosecuting authorities against six police officers who had been accused by the applicants. In a judgment of February 2003 the Assize Court decided to discontinue proceedings against four of the officers because the limitation period had expired, given that five years had passed since the last procedural step and no other measure capable of suspending the running of the limitation period had been taken; it also discontinued proceedings against another officer because he had died. A further officer was found guilty of having beaten and tortured two applicants, causing one of them to have a miscarriage. With regard to the accusations brought by the other applicants, the officer was acquitted in the absence of sufficiently certain evidence of his guilt.
Law: Article 3 – The Court found it established that all the thirteen applicants in question – four of whom had been aged eighteen or less at the material time and one of whom was pregnant – had lived throughout their time in police custody in a permanent state of physical pain and anxiety owing to uncertainty about their fate and the intensity of the violence to which they had been subjected. In the Court’s opinion, such treatment had been intentionally meted out by agents of the State in the performance of their duties, with the aim of extracting confessions or information. The violence inflicted on them, taken as a whole and having regard to its purpose and duration, had been particularly serious and cruel, had been capable of causing “severe” pain and suffering and had therefore amounted to “torture”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The same applicants also complained under Article 3 of the failure to carry out an extensive investigation into these acts of torture. The Court, master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts, decided to examine this complaint under Article 13.
Article 13 (examined by the Court of its own motion) – In the course of the domestic investigation in respect of the police officers, opened following the applicants’ complaint, certain of the accused had not been brought face to face with the applicants, including the officer who had been acquitted of torture. Additional medical examinations had also been requested with a view to establishing the causes of the injuries observed on the applicants’ bodies but those examinations had never been ordered, which represented not only a flaw in the investigation but in certain circumstances could also amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment”. The investigation had also been very long, which, on account of the limitation period, had resulted in virtual impunity for the main perpetrators of the acts of violence, despite the irrefutable evidence against them. The criminal-law remedy used by the applicants had thus been rendered ineffective, which had rendered equally ineffective recourse to civil remedies as a means of obtaining redress for the alleged violations. In those circumstances, the Court held that the applicants had satisfied the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 3 – The length of time spent in police custody – between eleven and thirteen days – had been excessive. As to the length of the periods of pre-trial detention complained of by the applicants, the authorities had merely used identical and abstract phrases to order their continued detention. In addition, the Court held that special diligence had been required, especially as one of the victims was a minor and the applicants had claimed to be victims of police violence.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicants sums for personal injury and non-pecuniary damage, and for costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy