Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 125
December 2009
Yusuf Gezer v. Turkey - 21790/04
Judgment 1.12.2009 [Section II]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Effective investigation
Ill-treatment in police custody and lack of effective response by authorities: violations
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Use of confession obtained under duress: violation
Facts – The applicant was arrested in 2001 on suspicion of murder and was taken into police custody. In the assize court he denied the charges against him and alleged that he had been tortured while in police custody. In 2002 the assize court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation. Meanwhile, in 2003, the applicant lodged a complaint against the officers in charge during his police custody and applied for leave to intervene in the proceedings. The public prosecutor sought the officers’ conviction for inflicting ill-treatment with a view to obtaining a confession. The assize court acquitted the police officers for lack of tangible evidence against them. The applicant did not appeal against that decision to the Court of Cassation.
Law – Article 3: (a) Admissibility – Regarding the alleged failure to exhaust the remedy before the Court of Cassation, the Court remained of the view that, in practice, an appeal on points of law would not have enabled the applicant to clarify or improve the evidence already in the case file concerning his complaint, nor could it have altered significantly the outcome of either the investigation or the criminal proceedings. It therefore dismissed this objection.
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (majority).
(b) Merits – (i) Substantive aspect: The medical examination carried out on the applicant after his arrest had not recorded any injuries. The applicant had been examined by a doctor at the end of his detention in police custody and had complained of being beaten. His account was corroborated by the medical report on that examination, which mentioned multiple bruises and linear abrasions to his chest and back. Accordingly, in the absence of a plausible explanation from the Government, responsibility for the applicant’s injuries lay with the respondent State. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 in its substantive aspect.
(ii) Procedural aspect: As to whether the authorities had responded effectively to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, the Court observed that, as far back as 19 July 2001, the former had had sufficiently precise indications of ill-treatment in the form of a complaint to that effect corroborated by medical evidence dated 22 April 2001. However, they had taken no action until 19 April 2004, that is, approximately three years after the events, when they had commenced a prosecution, and then only after the applicant had lodged a complaint. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 3 in its procedural aspect also.
Conclusion: violations (six votes to one).
Article 6: The applicant had been interrogated by police officers from the Security Directorate during his four days in police custody. During that time, and without his lawyer being present, he had made several self-incriminating statements which had subsequently formed part of the evidence on which the assize court based its decision to convict. It was sufficient for the European Court to observe that the establishment of the facts by the criminal courts had been based in part on statements obtained from the applicant as a result of ill-treatment. Consequently, the procedural guarantees provided in the instant case had not prevented use being made of confessions obtained under duress. Given that the Court of Cassation had not remedied that defect, the European Court ruled that the result required by Article 6 had not been achieved in the proceedings in question.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: A retrial in compliance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention considered the most appropriate form of redress, if requested by the applicant.
© 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