Published on 19 May 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 55139/20
Yusuf KÖZ
against Türkiye
lodged on 26 November 2020
communicated on 30 April 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s allegations of torture and ill‑treatment in police custody and allegations of a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicant, who used to serve as a lieutenant colonel in the Gendarmerie, was arrested by the authorities at the Headquarters of the General Command of the Gendarmerie in the morning of 16 July 2016 on suspicion of having participated in the coup attempt. He remained in police custody until 20 July 2016, when he was placed in pre‑trial detention by the Magistrates’ Court.
The medical reports drawn up during the applicant’s custody noted several bruises and marks on his body. The first medical report dated 16 July 2016 noted a cutting and stabbing wound with a 1 cm laceration on the left knee and a 1 cm laceration on the left elbow. A second report dated 17 July 2016 taken at the Ankara Ulus State Hospital found that it was appropriate to transfer the applicant to a hospital for further treatment. He was then transferred to Gazi University Hospital, where another medical report was drawn up, noting multiple abrasions and ecchymoses on the applicant’s chest, back, arms, elbows and knees. Two further reports taken on 19 July 2016 repeated these findings. Lastly, a medical report dated 20 July 2016 noted that there were no new signs of battery or assault.
While the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending, in separate criminal proceedings against a third person, his name was mentioned by the Isparta Assize Court as one of the military personnel managers within the secret structure of the FETÖ/PDY (Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation/ Parallel State Structure).
On 4 March 2019 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Ankara Public Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that he had been subjected to torture during the time he had been in police custody between 16 and 20 July 2016. He alleged that he had been deprived of sleep, food and water, not allowed to use the toilet, threatened to be killed and have his family members injured, beaten and had his eyes blindfolded. He further claimed that he had been taken to the hospital twice in an unconscious state after fainting due to his ill-treatment. He also claimed that the presumption of innocence was violated because of the incriminating statements made by the Isparta Assize Court. He requested the Public Prosecutor to bring charges against the persons who were responsible for these unlawful acts.
On 13 May 2019 the Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision not to prosecute, finding that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against officers besides the abstract allegations of the applicant. In that respect, it stated that while the military personnel, including the applicant, had been brought to the Counter-Terrorism Branch in the immediate aftermath of the coup attempt, they had been assaulted by a large crowd that gathered in front of the police headquarters, despite all efforts by the officers. It further noted that the higher-ranking military personnel, including the applicant, had demonstrated verbal and physical resistance towards the officers, which had led to a gradual intervention by the latter and that physical and verbal altercations had occurred between soldiers of lower and higher ranks. Lastly, there were no signs of battery and assault in the medical reports taken during custody.
On 17 June 2020 the Constitutional Court found the applicant’s individual application, in which he had complained of violations of the prohibition of ill-treatment and the principle of the presumption of innocence, inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
Before the Court, the applicant argues that he was subjected to ill‑treatment at the hands of the State agents while he was in police custody, and that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He further argues that Article 6 § 2 of the Convention was breached notably on account of prejudicial statements made by public officials in parallel proceedings. Lastly, he complains of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, arguing that the domestic authorities failed to properly examine his complaints and provide sufficient reasoning.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015, and Salin and Karşin v. Turkey, no. 44188/09, §§ 60-72, 23 June 2015)?
The Government are invited to submit all the medical reports obtained in respect of the applicant during his custody between 16 July 2016 and 20 July 2016.
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid, cited above, §§ 114-23, and Salin and Karşin, cited above, §§ 75-81)?
3. Did the applicant have an effective remedy to claim a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence before the domestic authorities, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? If so, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide information regarding any available and effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence on account of prejudicial statements made by public officials, notably members of a court in parallel proceedings against third persons. In that connection, the Government are further requested to submit examples of relevant domestic case-law, demonstrating the effectiveness of any such remedies.
4. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, notably in view of the allegedly prejudicial statements made by public officials in parallel proceedings concerning the applicant (see, for the general principles, Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, §§ 63-64, 27 February 2014)?