Following are some of the cases that ECHR concluded in the year 2002 concerning issues of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, long detentions and arbitrary loss of freedom, right to defense, lack of access to a court and lack of a fair trial within a reasonable time.
Hasan Özbey: (Application no. 31883/96) He was detained on 27 January 1995 for having participated in a
DHKP-C action. İstanbul SSC convicted him to 3 years 9 months in prison on 2 June 1995. He applied to ECHR with the charge of ill-treatment in custody (Article 3 of the Convention). Turkey reached a friendly settlement on 31 January and accepted to pay a global sum of 100,000 French francs for damage, costs and expenses.
Vahdettin Yolcu: (Application no. 34684/97) He was kept in detention for 12 days between 24 July 1996 and 5
August 1996 in the course of a PKK case. He complained, among other things, under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention and Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to defend self through legal assistance of own choosing). On 5 February Turkey reached a friendly settlement in which 40,000 French francs inclusive of costs and expenses is to be paid to the applicant.
Faruk Kaplan: (Application no. 24932/94) He was detained on 10 February 1994 as a part of the operation He
applied to ECHR with the charge of failure to bring him promptly before a judge (Article 5 § 3), among other things. Turkey reached a friendly settlement on 26 February and agreed to pay the global sum of 24,000 French francs.
Esma Erat, Metin Sağlam: (Application no. 30492/96) Esma Erat was detained on 27 February 1995 and Metin
Sağlam on 8 March 1995. They applied to ECHR with the charges that they had been tortured at Anti-Terror branch of İstanbul Police HQ (Article 3). Turkey reached a friendly settlement on 26 March and accepted to pay the global sum of 150,000 French francs.
Hüseyin Ülger: (Application no. 28505/95) He was detained on 19 March 1995 for alleged membership to the
Revolution Party of Turkey (TDP). He took his case to ECHR with charges of failure to bring him promptly before a judge, absence of possibility to challenge lawfulness of detention and absence of right to compensation (Art. 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5). Turkey reached a friendly settlement on 28 March and agreed to pay the global sum of 300,000 French francs.
Mehmet Özkan: (Application no. 29856/96) He was kept in custody in İstanbul from 11 to 24 July 1995. He applied
to ECHR with charges of ill-treatment in custody, failure to bring him promptly before a judge and absence of review of lawfulness of detention (Articles 3, 5 § 3 and 5 § 4). On 9 April Turkey reached a friendly settlement and accepted to pay the global sum of about 30,000 Euros.
Atalay Dede, Mehmet Kumral, Hüseyin Hakkı Zabcı, Mehmet Akın Dirik: (Application no. 32981/96) In
January and February 1981 the applicants were arrested and placed in police custody, accused of membership of an illegal organization, the Dev-Yol. They were subsequently released pending trial. In December 1995 the convictions of two of the applicants were quashed; criminal proceedings against the other two are still pending. The applicants complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the length of criminal proceedings against them, almost 14 years, 10 months and 13 days for two of them and more than 21 years for the other two. On 7 May the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each of the applicants 15,250 Euros for non-pecuniary damage and 1,200 Euros for costs and expenses.
Mehmet Göç: (Application no. 36590/97) He was detained on 25 July 1995 on suspicion of theft and using falsified
documents. He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) on the ground that he was denied a fair hearing on the determination of his compensation claim, as no oral hearing was held and as he had no opportunity to respond to the opinion of the Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court of Cassation advising that his appeal be dismissed. On 11 July the ECHR held that there was violation of Article 6 § 1.
Mehmet Aydın: (Application no. 29289/95) He was detained on 30 December 1993 in İstanbul and remanded to
prison on 10 January 1994. He lodged an official complaint against 3 police officials, but the prosecutor opened a case against 2 of the officers and the court acquitted them on 18 July 1995. He applied to ECHR with the charge of ill-treatment in custody (Article 3). Turkey reached a friendly settlement on 16 July and accepted to pay the global sum of 32,000 Euros.
Özgür Yıldız: (Application no. 32979/96) He was detained on 19 April 1993 in İstanbul. The Forensics issued three
medical reports for him, dated 27 and 29 April and 6 May 1993, certifying that he suffered fro permanent injuries. A trial was opened against two police officers, but the court acquitted them on 27 June 1996. On the other hand, İstanbul SSC convicted him to 12 years 6 months in prison on charges of being a member of DHKP-C. He took his case to ECHR, complaining about ill-treatment in custody (Article 3) and unfairness of proceedings (Article 6 § 1). Turkey reached a friendly settlement on 16 July and accepted to pay a global sum of 30,489 Euros for damage, costs and expenses.
Yalçın Önder: (Application no. 31136/96) He was detained in İzmir in January 1995 for membership to the illegal
organization TDKP. The Forensics issued a medical report certifying the torture he was subjected to in detention. The prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution concerning the police officers. On 2 April 1997 he was acquitted of charges of membership to an illegal organization. He took his case to ECHR with the charge of ill-treatment in custody (Article 3). On 25 July Turkey reached a friendly settlement in which 16,800 Euros inclusive of costs and expenses is to be paid to the applicant.
Halil Gündoğan: (Application no. 31877/96) He was detained in October 1995 in İstanbul for membership to the
illegal TİKKO organization and on 12 November 1999 he was sentenced to life imprisonment under Article 146/1 TPC. He took his case to ECHR, complaining about failure to bring him promptly before a judge (Article 5 § 3), absence of possibility to challenge lawfulness of detention (Article 5 § 4) and absence of right to compensation in respect of unlawful detention (Article 5 § 5). On 10 October the Court held that there had been a violation of aforementioned articles and awarded the applicant 2,750 Euros for non-pecuniary damage and 1,500 Euros for pecuniary damage.
Süleyman Kaplan: (Application no. 38578/97) He was detained on 3 May 1995 in Ankara for being a member of
the illegal TDKP organization and sentenced to 12 years 6 months in prison on 24 June 1996. He applied to ECHR with the charge of ill-treatment in custody (Article 3). On 10 October Turkey reached a friendly settlement and accepted to pay 28,000 Euros to the applicant.
Mehmet Sıddık Öncü: (Application no. 33234/96) He was detained when the security forces raided Kirkat hamlet
of Çınar, Diyarbakır on 21 June 1993. He was tortured outside the village and in custody, and he died on 5 July 1993. He died because of brain hemorrhage due to a blow to the head, read the Forensics report dated 17 September 1993. His wife took the case to ECHR complaining about the death of her husband in custody as a result of ill-treatment (Articles 2 and 3). Turkey reached a friendly settlement on 17 October and agreed to pay 100,000 Euros to his relatives for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage.
Meryeme Algür: (Application no. 32574/96) On 21 March 1995 she was detained in İstanbul for membership to
PKK and on 25 May 1996 she was sentenced to 15 years in prison under Article 168 TPC and the Court of Cassation upheld the ruling on 16 June 1997. She applied to ECHR with the claims of ill-treatment in police custody (Article 3) and independence and impartiality of State Security Court (Article 6 § 1). On 22 October the Court held that there had been a violation of aforementioned articles and awarded the applicant the global sum of 28,000 Euros.
Recep Maraşlı, Nuran Çamlı, Murat Satık, Fahriye Satık: (Application nos. nos. 24737/94, 24739/94, 24740/94
and 24741/94) Having been detained on 8 July 1994 in İstanbul, Recep Maraşlı, the editor and co-founder of Komal publishing company, his wife Nuran Çamlı, Murat Satık and Fahriye Satık applied to ECHR, complaining of the length of their detention (thirteen days) in police custody under Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), and of lack of a remedy by which they could challenge their detention under Article 5 § 4 (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). On 22 October the Court held unanimously that there had been
a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded each of the applicants 4,573 Euros for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 to all of them for costs and expenses. The applicants are political refugees and currently live abroad.
Yaşar Özel: (Application no. 42739/98) On 4 March 1997 İstanbul SSC sentenced him to life imprisonment on
charges of “extorting money in the name of the illegal TKEP/KKP organization”. He is currently serving in Bayrampaşa Prison in İstanbul. He applied to ECHR and clamed that he had been kept in detention for 15 days without being allowed to see any one, he had been tortured in custody and his right to a fair trial had been violated as State Security Courts were not independent and impartial. On 7 November the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 3,000 Euros for non-pecuniary damage and 1,500 Euros for pecuniary damage.
Bekir Sıtkı Keçeci: (Application no. 38588/97) He and his wife were detained in on 26 January 1993 on allegations
of membership to DHKP-C. On 13 March 1997 10 police officers were acquitted in the trial that was opened on 28 February 1995 in connection with his complaint. He applied to ECHR complaining of the torture he and his wife were subjected to in detention (Article 3). On 26 November Turkey reached a friendly settlement and accepted to pay 15,000 Euros to the applicant.
Erhan Kuray: (Application no. 36971/97) He was detained on 17 December 1996 on suspicion of having links to
the PKK. He was remanded to prison on 28 December 1996. On 29 December 1997 İstanbul SSC sentenced him to 12,5 years in prison for membership of an illegal organization. He appealed against that judgment and subsequently applied for a re-trial, but without success. The applicant complained of the length of his detention (11 days) in police custody (Article 3). On 26 November the case was struck out following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive EUR 3,750 for damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Makbule Kınay: (Application no. 31890/96) She applied to ECHR with the charges that her house in Malazgirt,
Muş and her possessions had been destructed by security forces and village guards on 18 September 1995,when her husband Ramazan Kınay was serving in Diyarbakır Prison (Articles 3, 8 and 13, and Article 1 of Protocol 1). On 26 November Turkey reached a friendly settlement in which the global sum of 59,000 Euros for damage, costs and expenses is to be paid to the applicant.
Züleyha Yılmaz: She was wounded by the police and then detained on 28 October 1992 in İstanbul while putting up
posters. She was remanded to prison for membership to TİKB. She applied to ECGHR with charges of excessive use of force during apprehension and in custody (Article 3). Turkey reached a friendly settlement and accepted to pay the global sum of about 30,000 Euros.
Sevil Dalkılıç: (Application no. 25756/94) The police detained her on 2 March 1994 on suspicion of having assisted
the illegal PKK. She was held in police custody until 17 March 1994, when she was brought before a judge who ordered her to be placed in pre-trial detention. On 7 February 1995 a State Security Court sentenced her to 30 years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that she had not been brought "promptly" before a judge after her arrest, that she had had no remedy by which to challenge her detention in police custody and that she had been unable to seek compensation for the excessive length of her detention in police custody. On 5 December the Court held that there was violation of the aforementioned articles and awarded the applicant the global sum of 7,000 Euros inclusive of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses.
Activities of Bar Associations
On 24 May İzmir Bar Association announced its report on torture and ill-treatment, which was based on the court records between 1997 and 2001 in İzmir. Chair of the Bar Noyan Özkan declared that the prosecutor’s office ignored the statements of the detainees when they declared that they had been tortured in detention. According to the report, it was evident that the police officers had declared that the detainee had resisted them so the torture inflicted in custody could be covered. According to the figures taken from the statistical information on 7 criminal courts and 21 penal courts in İzmir and Bornova between 197 and 2001, the number of the police officers who were subjected to attacks by detainees is six times higher than the number of the detainees who claimed that they were tortured in
custody. “That is to say, true victims are the security officers, according to this table!”, said Özkan. The number of the court cases against the perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment remained 94 in this 5-year period. However, the number of the applicants to the HRFT İzmir Office in the same period was 848.
The professional training seminars organized by the Human Rights Center at İstanbul Bar within the framework of the “Project for Legal Aid for the Victims of Torture” were concluded at the beginning of June. Forty-four lawyers attended the seminars and received certificates. Lawyer Şeref Turgut summed up the objectives of the project as follows: “To provide legal assistance and consulting services free of charge to those who are unaware of the remedies against torture or those who cannot lodge complaints due to financial problems.”
Decree 430 that allows for prolonged detention in the state of emergency region ([4] )
In 2002 one of the debates in the course of the right to personal security concerned the Decree 430, which was implemented throughout the first half of the 1990s especially for taking the confessors out of prisons for interrogations. Following the constitutional amendments in 2001 shortening the detention periods, the authorities started to apply this decree for extending the length of detentions and the period for interrogations. Reports from the State of Emergency Region demonstrated the fact that those who are taken from prisons for interrogations were tortured. In such cases, the detainee is deprived of access to a lawyer and of contacts with relatives. Upon such reports Minister of Justice Hikmet Sami Türk stated on 13 January that pre-trial detention periods in police custody would be reduced to a maximum of 7 days, but no amendment would be made to Decree 430. Minister Türk continued, “The harmonization package will reduce the pre-trial detention periods in police custody to a maximum of four days, with a possible extension of three days in the provinces still under emergency rule. In this region, the detention period can be extended to 10 days according to the provisions of Decree 430. But there is no intention of changing Decree 430 for the time being.”
Nevertheless, the Ministry of Justice issued a circular on 5 February, urging the judicial authorities to avoid any arbitrary action while extending the detention period according to Decree 430. According to the circular, people on remand in prison should be taken to a doctor before being taken from the prison and while being taken back according to Decree 430.
On 13 September the Ministry of Justice issued a circular urging the judicial authorities to avoid any misuse of the provisions of Decree 430. The circular, which had many similarities with the one issued by the Minister Türk on 5 February, read as follows: “The information received by the Ministry of Justice reveals that detention periods for the prisoners-convicts who are taken from the prison for further interrogation are extended for a second time according to Decree 430 without the convicts being taken before a judge. According to the latest amendments in the Law on State Security Courts, the detention periods in the OHAL can be extended only up to seven days upon the demand of the prosecutors and decision of judges. We urge (the authorities) to not to extend the detention period for the prisoners-convicts, who are tried-convicted of crimes which led to the establishment of the State of Emergency rule, unless a decision by a judge is obtained in advance.”
On 30 January Hüseyin Diriöz, spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, held a press conference stating that the Turkish government had informed the Council of Europe that Turkey would stick to the maximum length of detention in the region under a state of emergency and it withdrew its derogation from certain obligations under Article 15 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Accordingly, the Council of Europe had been informed that the statement by the Turkish government of 6 August 1990 to the effect that Article 15 of the European Convention of Human Rights would not apply in the OHAL region was no longer valid. Diriöz said that there was no ground for such a reservation as the provisions concerning detention periods had become harmonized with the legislation of the Convention and ECHR “This step is an indicator of the improvements that have been recorded in our country concerning the issues of democratization and respect to laws and human rights,” said Diriöz.
The Ministry of Justice started an investigation against the judge Ali Haydar Yücesoy, who refused to extend the length of detention for Emrullah Karagöz and Mustafa Yaşar, ([5] ) who had been detained in Diyarbakır and held for more than 40 days in custody. The judge was confronted with such a demand on 20 November 2001. The
gendarmerie wanted to continue the interrogation according to Decree 430 that allows for prolonged detention in the region under a state of emergency. Judge Yücesoy had asked for information and documents to support the demand of extension, but had not received any details. The prosecutor at Diyarbakır SSC objected to the refusal and another judge granted a third extension of the period of detention. The investigation against judge Yücesoy is based on the allegation that he might not be trustworthy. In response to the investigation against him, Judge Yücesoy opened a case against the Ministry of Justice demanding compensation. Reportedly further incidents are also part of the investigation. One of them is an official complaint that the judge Yücesoy made against the officials, who raided a house in Silvan (Diyarbakır) on 17 October 2001 and killed three people.