Communicated on 19 May 2014
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 33806/11
Abdüllatif KARAKURT
against Turkey
lodged on 20 April 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Abdüllatif Karakurt, is a German national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Leer, Lower Saxony. He is represented before the Court by Mrs H. Üçpınar and Mr S. Yurdakul, lawyers practising in İzmir.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 4 October 2009 the applicant was involved in a fight with a number of other people at his sister’s wedding. The owner of the venue where the wedding was taking place called the police to ask them to intervene in order to stop the fight between the guests.
4. Upon receiving the call, five police officers, two of them in plain clothes, went to the venue and intervened in order to stop the fight.
5. The applicant contended in a statement given before the Torbalı public prosecutor on 5 October 2009 that two police officers in plain clothes had used pepper spray, which had aggravated the situation at the venue. He alleged that pepper spray had been directed at his face. He also contended that police officers had beaten him in order to make him get into a police car. The applicant’s cousin had tried to prevent the police officers from taking the applicant into custody. Police officers had also hit the applicant’s cousin several times and had also taken him into custody.
6. According to the police officers’ version of events, as recorded in their statements made at the police station on 4 October 2009 and before the Torbalı public prosecutor on 15 October 2009, they had arrived at the venue and had seen that several people were fighting. They had tried to stop the fight and had taken into custody the individuals who did not abide by their instructions and orders. The applicant and his cousin had attacked the police officers with a chair and hit them with the chair. Police officers had used pepper spray in order to be in a position to take the applicant into custody. The applicant had threatened the police officers and had insulted them.
7. The applicant further asserted in his statement to the public prosecutor that, upon arriving at the police station on 4 October 2009, he had been put in a separate room from his cousin. Police officers had punched and kicked him several times on his back, abdomen and neck. He also alleged that a police officer had stepped on his head and pressed a chair into his neck. The applicant contended that he had passed out for a while because of the pain he suffered.
8. One hour after his arrival at the police station, the first medical examination was conducted on the applicant.
9. According to a medical report prepared by Torbalı State Hospital, there was a bruise of 10 x 3 cm on the applicant’s upper outer right arm, a bruise of 6 x 2 cm on his left shoulder blade, a bruise of 10 x 3 cm on the inner right side of his lower torso and a bruise of 8 x 3 cm on his left thigh.
10. The doctor stated that the applicant was no longer in pain from the injuries observed on his body. The injuries could be treated by simple medical treatment and did not constitute any risk to the applicant’s life, unless complications developed. No traces of alcohol were found in the applicant’s body, according to a blood analysis.
11. Following the issuing of the medical report, the applicant was brought back to the police station. At that stage, police officers notified the German Consulate of the applicant’s arrest. The applicant claims that, after that point, he was no longer ill-treated.
12. On 5 October 2009 the applicant was again taken to a medical clinic, namely Torbalı Public Health Centre, where he underwent a medical examination because his custody had ended. The applicant told the doctor that he felt pain on his upper outer right arm, upper outer left arm, left side of the abdomen, left knee cap, and right side of the torso.
13. The findings in the medical report drawn up at the clinic on 5 October 2009 were almost identical to those of the previous report, but also recorded a swelling on the left knee. The report concluded that the injuries inflicted on the applicant had not caused any permanent damage to his body.
14. On the same date, the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor. Subsequently, the applicant was released. Upon the applicant’s request, he was again taken to Torbalı State Hospital for a final medical report, which was consistent with the previous reports.
15. On 12 October 2009, Torbalı Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that the police produce the camera recordings of the police station and asked for the names of the police officers on duty on the day of the events.
16. On 14 October 2009, the police authorities replied to that letter by stating that they did not have the recordings, as they were automatically deleted every seventy-two hours.
1. Investigation against the police officers
17. On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor, alleging that he had been ill-treated during his arrest and while in custody.
18. On 15 October 2009 the Torbalı public prosecutor questioned the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant. The officers stated that the applicant and his cousin had threatened them and attacked them with chairs. They stated that they had used proportionate physical force against the applicant and his cousin to control them.
19. On 2 November 2009 the Torbalı public prosecutor took witness statements from several police officers who had been in the police station on the date of the events.
20. On 16 November 2009, the applicant contacted the İzmir Branch of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (İnsan Hakları Vakfı) in order for it to arrange further medical examinations.
21. On 26 April 2010 the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey drew up a medical report which stated that, in psychological terms, the applicant was found to be suffering from trauma and flashbacks as the result of the alleged ill-treatment.
22. On 24 November 2009 the Torbalı public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the police officers who had arrested the applicant and the other officers on duty during the time the applicant had been held at the police station. The prosecutor held, in particular, that the police officers had acted under the authority granted by Law no. 2559 to fend off the attacks they had been facing and to control the applicant, who had acted in a violent manner until his arrival at the police station, and that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s allegations that the police had used excessive force against him. The public prosecutor further held that the injuries mentioned in the medical reports concerning the applicant were not life-threatening and had only required simple medical treatment.
23. On 14 October 2010 Karşıyaka 1st Assize Court rejected an objection lodged by the applicant against the decision to not prosecute.
2. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
24. Following his arrest, on 5 October 2009 the applicant refused to give a statement at the police station. On the same date, the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor and subsequently released.
25. On 8 October 2009 Torbalı Magistrates’ Court granted the applicant conditional bail (adli kontrol). The applicant was ordered to pay 3000 liras (TRY) (approximately 1400 euros (EUR) at the time of the events) in security and was prohibited from leaving the country.
26. On 12 October 2009 the applicant lodged an objection against the bail conditions set by Torbalı Magistrates’ Court.
27. On 13 October 2009, the applicant’s objection was rejected by Torbalı 2nd Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction.
28. On 24 November 2009, Torbalı Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment with Torbalı Magistrates’ Court charging the applicant with defamation of and assault on two police officers. The criminal proceedings are still pending before that court.
COMPLAINTS
29. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment which amounted to torture.
30. He also complains under Article 13 that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective, as the decision not to prosecute was rendered on the basis of the police reports and without further investigation. He alleges that the authorities failed to duly examine the evidence he submitted in support of his allegations. The applicant claims that the authorities also failed to punish the police officers responsible, which cast doubt on their independence and impartiality.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV, §131), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy